Wine Focus - January: What’s the point of a tasting note?

[David M. Bueker]

We have all written countless tasting notes. Some are a litany of descriptors, almost as if the ingredients in the note could create the wine. Others are more experiential - how the wine made us feel while we were drinking it. Then there’s the “Danger Will Robinson! Danger!” cautionary tales of a wine that was supposed to be good but not only failed, but did so in spectacular fashion.

Over the last year or so I have been pondering the point of a tasting note. I still write a lot of them, but only feel enthusiasm for doing so when the wine sends me to experiential land. Then there’s the undeniable fact that we all experience wines in a different way. My passionfruit (my favorite Scheurebe descriptor) is someone else’s pink grapefruit.

So what do you think? What is the point of a tasting note? What kind of notes do you prefer to write and/or read?

Over the last year or so I have been pondering the point of a tasting note. I still write a lot of them, but only feel enthusiasm for doing so when the wine sends me to experiential land. Then there’s the undeniable fact that we all experience wines in a different way. My passionfruit (my favorite Scheurebe descriptor) is someone else’s pink grapefruit.

Good question for a wine board!

I take notes on everything I drink at home, for my personal reference and to guide future purchasing/opening/serving/decanting etc decisions. However, as you imply, I only post the notes that are of particular interest. I do find value in the wine boards, especially when TNs are a springboard to a broader conversation. That's my main interest, which is why I think there has been a degradation in conversations since IG and bottle shots entered the picture. But, time moves forward...

Good one for January. I used to write a lot of TNs but lately health issues have taken a toil. Plus I taste less. Will be around this month.

I prefer tasting notes without points

[David M. Bueker]

OK - who is still using points here?

OK - who is still using points here?

No one that I know of. Just couldn't resist punning off your title.

[David M. Bueker]

Gaa! Can’t believe I missed that.

[Jenise]

When I was a child, I was a voracious reader but felt sad after finishing a book and returning it to the library so I started filling out 3x5 cards on each book and filing them in a recipe box. I no longer keep track of books, now I keep track of wine. I've pretty much quit posting on every single bottle here, but I remain a compulsive record keeper on CT.

I'm glad people take notes, I enjoy reading about the experiences even if I have nothing useful to contribute.

The things I like to see in a tasting note are:

o How much did you like (or dislike) the wine, and why?

o What aromas/flavors/nuances did you encounter? What was the drinking experience like?

I don't like wine ratings using numeric points. I was trained as a scientist and two of the things beaten into my head are the dual concepts of precision and accuracy, and especially using the proper number of significant digits when reporting numerical measurements. I'm sorry, but IMO both the Parker-style 50-point system (50-100) and the UC Davis 20-point scale are inherently bogus. Wine tasting is a subjective and inaccurate enough experience that one is not entitled to 51 or even 21 gradations. An A-B-C-D-F system, perhaps with plus and minus, is pushing the limits of precision. That's why I use Stuart Yaniger's Three Stooges rating system, which has only three gradations and also has the advantage of conveying some of the nuances of the tasting experience (harshness [Moe], easygoing character [Larry], exceptional quality [Curly]).

Regarding descriptions of flavors and nuances, if you are writing tasting notes to share your experience with others you need to use descriptions that will fall within the experience of your target audience. So saying that a wine has aromas of unripe rambutan is not useful if you're writing for an audience of Westerners, who likely don't even know what a rambutan, let alone what they smell like when unripe.

-Paul W.

[Jenise]

Paul, re audience. While your example of the rambutan makes sense, this begs the question: when you write a note, who are you writing for? If you're only writing for you and what you might look back on later, then 'rambutan' it should be. You could always pivot to "exotic asian fruit" but that's broad enough that it might mean even less. I write for myself myself today and two years from now when I might have the same wine again.

[David M. Bueker]

The language of tasting notes is something worth exploring in greater detail. How useful is a note that requires a dictionary?

The language of tasting notes is something worth exploring in greater detail. How useful is a note that requires a dictionary?

As I've grown older (and likely more jaded) I've come to realize that the common "fruit salad" form of description is mostly useless as our subjective impressions of what fruit you're smelling/tasting varies so highly. As an aside, I have to question how many CT users have ever actually smelled or tasted a black currant or garrigue (personally, I feel that half the "garrigue" notes are used to describe varying levels of Brett).

To me, the most useful organoleptic descriptors concern texture and generic character of the esters: red fruit, tart red fruit, black fruit and of course orange creamsicle

[David M. Bueker]

Well I have smelled and tasted cultivate and wild black currants on numerous occasions, and had more than my fair share of opportunities in Southwest France to inhale the wild scrub aromas, which to me are similar though not identical to some of the scrub aromas I come across in other places. Doesn’t seem like brett to me.

Agree with you on the fruit salad. My white peach is someone else’s underripe pineapple.

Jenise, agree completely that the style of descriptors depends on the audience. If you're writing for yourself, rambutan-esque descriptions are completely appropriate. If one is trying to convey the experience to others, one should use commonplace descriptors likely to be in everyone's experience.

Then there's the whole subject of wine jargon in tasting notes. Or other jargon. I try to avoid descriptors from organic chemistry creeping into the tasting notes I write for general consumption.

-Paul W.

[Jenise]

The language of tasting notes is something worth exploring in greater detail. How useful is a note that requires a dictionary?

I would argue it's fine. I occasionally use the descriptor 'quince', for example. Most people have never smelled or tasted fresh quince; I have, and the first time I did it struck me as the elusive fruit I'd been unable to otherwise nail a few days prior in a note about a falanghina--lemon, apple and pineapple can only take you so far without being interchangeable with chardonnay. If others don't understand the reference, fine; but should I water my description down for their sake? I don't think so. The very fact that anyone chooses an unusual term to describe a wine already signals that there's something different/unusual about this wine, and that all by itself is relatable even without an experience in your own catalog of palate memories to know what that is.

If every tasting note only consisted of commonly understood, dry linear facts like 'red fruit' and 'bright acidity' we'd have nothing to talk about. However accurate those words might be, they convey nothing about the personality of the wine and it's personality--words like stern, reticent, exotic, sexy--that makes a wine stand out from its peers for better or worse. Bring on the rambutans!

Speaking of which, nobody on this board captures personality better than Patchen.

[David M. Bueker]

I have a quince bush in my front yard!

So I write notes for myself, but posting them is in hope of discussion (disagreement!).
Lots of reasons I write notes for myself.
I don't trust myself to remember every wine I have. Posting means I won't accidentally buy a Remi Leroy Champagne in future, but I would buy a Phillipe Glavier.
While very imperfect in my case, writing TNs improves the chances I'll remove a consumed wine from CT.
Flavor descriptors are quite personal, but personal associations are invaluable in being better (not good!) at blind tasting, which I enjoy. If to me a claret is more plum than cassis, I'm likely to go RB vs Medoc, etc. Writing notes helps me learn.
My diary style can remind me what food we served the last time X came to dinner.
I enjoy reading most notes posted here, in lots of different styles. Thanks all who post.

PS I never used to use quince, really only knew quince paste, till Betsy's cousin sent us some quince from her tree, now it has a place in my TNs.

[Robin Garr]

Meg Maker, in consultation with Terry Theise, has an interesting take on that in her Substack today. This quote got my attention:

We both believe the tasting note is an impoverished way of talking about wine’s significance and impact. We believe the professional system of tasting and scoring wines, often under time pressure, elides the taster’s experience in ways that make the writing affectless. We believe that wine is worth writing about, but also that we owe the subject the courtesy of more of our human creativity.

Here's the Substack piece:
https://open.substack.com/pub/makerstab ... medium=web

And this is the article that she and Theise wrote for The World of Fine Wine:
A defense of wine writing
Does an object of beauty deserve to be written about beautifully?
https://worldoffinewine.com/news-featur ... ne-writing

[David M. Bueker]

I was literally about to link the same Substack piece.

Here's the Substack piece:
https://open.substack.com/pub/makerstab ... medium=web

An interesting piece with a lot of intellectual history, although veers a bit into navel gazing. I mean there are clearly different types of wine writing for different purposes. Not sure I would even call the commercial critic TNs to be 'wine writing', although I suppose advertising copy is technically the written word, so maybe it's the same thing.

[David M. Bueker]

Navel gazing is a lot more interesting than a lot of wine writing!

[Jenise]

This relatable quote from Terry Thiese: Wine doesn’t make people wine geeks. They were already geeks, and whatever it is they approach, they approach in a geeky way, and wine doesn’t make people snobs either. They were already snobs, and when they approached wine, they found a very welcoming avenue for their snobbism.

[David M. Bueker]

Yup. I am a geek about other things, especially data, and the visualization of data.