Are we wine snobs?

I agree with her. More correctly, she can learn to do better, and learning comes with experience. She had her first experience, and learned something. Her next experience is likely to be better (except that, alas, it was on Usenet)

Almost certainly. Was there any doubt?

Nothing. She expected tannins. She didn't expect them to be so strong. Perhaps the Chianti she got was more tannic than most. Perhaps it was the pairing that brought out that flavor. This is part of learning. Talking about it (nicely) is also part of learning, so she came here.

I would imagine from the wine shop. Of course I don't know, I wasn't there, it could have been from the guy down the street drinking out of a paper bag. :)

Yes, it is a large consituent of Chianti. She made a reasonable inference. It might have been incorrect, but as a wine novice it was entirely reasonable.

That was =much= better stated than your original response, which I won't quote here again.

That would have been another good suggestion to make to her, with the comment that it would have acted as a good foil to the tannins. They would therefore have seemed less bitter.

Only to you, who knows wine. Remember, she doesn't know wine. She is not familiar with how (and why) it pairs (or doesn't) with various foods. She is merely ignorant (and I mean it in the neutral sense). And neither ignorance nor naivety is a sin; neither is worthy of being berated for.

I don't think amateurs do professional style tasting.

I haven't read all those books. I don't think that people gain "absolutely nothing useful" from tasting wines. I am no pro, and I gain quite a bit by tasting wines; at the very least I get to decide which wines I want to cart home for three thousand miles. That's worth it.

I agree that amateur "professional style" blind tastings (five whites, five reds, guess the type, the vintage, the region, the winery, and tell me the weather on the last three weeks of growing) are probably often little more than fun and games. There is however nothing wrong with fun and games, even with wine.

I will say that there are some useful things that =could= come from tasting wines that I do not yet have the skills for. One example is discerning the various flavor elements in a wine. One could then predict good pairings, even if the wine will taste different. In this case, what the wine "tastes like" (in the tasting) is not really relevant, but "does the wine have citrus flavorings", "is there cherry" and the like is. It is not at all the same as enjoying wine with food, but then no analysis is.

Whatever wine you were drinking before you were buried. :)

Jose

I'm not sure.

Advice from someone who perhaps assumed she was going to have it with a meal?

I have no idea what she meant by "I really like sangiovese" if she had not had a Chianti before.

Thanks.

Yes, they do. The books show how to hold the glass, how to look at the color, the legs, how to sniff, the whole thing. It's disgusting.

They often misjudge the wine from such tastings.

You think maybe bottle size and price are better ways to pick wine? You think maybe ordinary folk are unable to learn how to do better?

Probably not. If the assumption were that it was to be with a meal, the natural question of what foods to be served would have likely been asked. She would likely answer saying what she intended to do with it. I suspect that, at the very least, she was told that the "riserva" is a "better" wine than the chianti next to it. I wouldn't hang much on that.

Are there no other wines made with sangiovese? I have bought (California) Sangiovese that was not called chianti.

Well, ok. I never understood what difference the color makes in the enjoyment of wine (except red wines that turned brown are probably oxidized, and if it came out green, I'd be worried). It's an observation, sure, but not one I find especially valuable. Ditto the legs (although I do notice that the whites I drink tend to leave droplets of something clear on the glass, whereas the reds don't (when the glass is merely left out without washing). I'm curious about that, but it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the wine itself.

So, yes, you are right. Those books do not =emphasize= what you and I find important in the enjoyment of wine, instead covering the gamut of observations used in professional wine evaluation (and of little use to amateurs). But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are a few observations that are useful to amateurs, and those are the ones I think most people concentrate on when they are tasting wine at a winery or a wine store.

1: nose (ok, a wine jargon word for "smell", but every field has its jargon) 2: mouthfeel (wine jargon again, but useful since there isn't a good alternate word) 3: palate (or any of a few other words for "taste")

And those are the same qualities considered primary with food: taste, texture, smell. These are the ones that help us pair flounder with broccoli rabe (or not!) at a meal. And yes, broccoli rabe tastes different with different foods too.

Perhaps, especially at first. But I think people learn as they do it.

I would say that the problem isn't that "wine tasting" is inherently a bad thing for amateurs to do, but rather, that the wrong things are emphasized (to and by) amateurs when they do this, especially at first. They learn, eventually, but much impedes them.

1: Wineries and wine shops are in the business of selling wine. They want to show their wine off at its best so people walk out with a case. To this end I'm mystified as to why they don't serve at least an appropriate finger food at tastings, although I suppose costs and the health department enter into the equation. They naturally don't want to serve food that =doesn't= go with their wine, even as a contrast, and even if it would educate the patron. I bet lots of people go to wineries, taste, and don't buy, so it gets expensive. 2: When there is a mystique, people like to shroud themselves in this mystique. It can be fun (if not taken to excess, or in an inappropriate setting), but it can also be counterproductive (as you rant about, and I agree with, though not militantly). 3: There is money to be made with "wine classes". Where there is money to be made, you will find it difficult to impede it. :)

However, you might consider writing a book, or at least a web site, wherein you can take people through a professional wine tasting, and pick the parts that are of no benefit to the amateurs (and why).

Then go into why an amateur might want to sample wine at a winery or wine store, and what he or she should take away from such a tasting. My opinion: to identify flavor elements (and thus pairing possibilities), to record one's impressions well enough that a year or three from now, in the cellar, reviewing those notes will bring back some of the experience (helpful when picking between several zins, or several different chiantis, or even between this pinot and that merlot)

Were it I, I would concentrate on the three basics, nose, mouthfeel, and palate (or taste, smell, and texture). I'd reccomend that wine be sampled without food, with an appropriate food, and with an inappropriate food, so that one can learn how to "calibrate" one's sensations.

I think there is a big market for such a work.

btw, I haven't read it, but what do you think of "Wine for dummies" (or similar books)?

Jose

Not the point. I don't think she actually did any better.

Nor I.

I'm not at all sure what she meant.

Right. All this stuff is useless. An expert can tell something about the wine and its color and legs, but most people cannot.

Yes. The aroma is important.

'Sensation(s)'.

Not terribly specific, is it?

Yes.

Perhaps.

Classes on how to take classes about books for dummies?

Why should I bother?

Unfamiliar with them. I may have glanced at one once, but it did not leave much of an impression. I prefer books that focus on Italian wine. I have a nice collection of Italian regional cookbooks.

Yes the point. She didn't do better =this= time. Sample size of one. Not statistically meaningful.

And she recognized this. =Her= reasoning didn't work. This is not to say that =reasoning= (coupled with a database composed of memories of tastes she's had with and without foods) =could= not work better, which seems to be your point.

No, that is not specific enough. "sensations" is a word generally used to mean =any= of many sensory inputs, including the pain of a stubbed toe, the dizziness of spinning in circles, the boom-boom in your gut from a teenager driving by in a car with the radio going, and the bright flash of lightning (let alone the sound thunder). We need a word indicating that the specific sensation being described is akin to texture, but for a liquid, as it is felt in the mouth. "Mouthfeel" works for me, though I suppose "texture" would do. "Texture" would be a little confusing, since we're talking about a liquid however, and literally speaking the actual texture is all pretty much the same. So, I'll go with "mouthfeel" as being most descriptive.

No, not really, but the word means more than just the actual flavors. What more, it's hard to say, but at least "palate" does not limit it to "flavor" or "taste", and indicates that it involves the mouth (rather than the nose or the dribbles down the chin). "Palate" is not otherwise used as a "flavor" word, so its use does not conflict with generally accepted use of the word. I'm ok with it, but I suppose "taste" or "flavor" would be adequate if you want to strongly de-jargonize (ick) the vocabulary here.

Hey, go for it! :)

Because you have something valuable to offer and you are passionate about it. I think you go overboard, at least here on these newsgroups, but much of what you say has merit, and there are few people saying it.

If you could say it gently and carefully, I think you'd have a wide audience, including Jenn.

Jose

Mike, we had a similar discussion when the 2004 list came out:

I think it's encouraging that GR at least included some traditional producers in some regions, but still there's probably 3 producers of the Altare/Moccagatta/LaSpinetta ilk for every Mascarello or Giacosa. As you know I'm no rigid doctrinaire-driven idealogue. I like some modern Barolos, and even some non-Sangiovese Supertuscans. But the GR love of oak, etc often seems to out-Parker Parker.

Ah yes, the grand old Italian tradition of nero d'avola doing malo in new barriques!

If you go to a Cigar Bar you really should not be surpised that you will have smoke on you when you leave if you smoked or did not smoke. That said if you come to a usenet group for wine, you should expect discussions about wine.

Other issues in this group might be the tone of which people discuss and try to control the discussion.

Internet usenet groups seem mostly to be loosly structured and not moderated. Perhaps those working on your FAQ's might really join a moderated group. While the info might be very good it does seem more like a few contributors want to control discussion. This is like those that join boards of Homeowners Associations because they are not happy with the way other mow their yards.

I do know I was not welcomed here and then was accused of being someone else. Not a nice thing to do to me. And the other person accused of being me did not seem to care for that either.

Now the same people doing the accusing are writing a structured methodology. Simply crap.

Audrey.

Hi UC,

I definitely second you on the anti- take for points lists, magazine reviews, and such. Typically make a point of avoiding anything Wine "Expectorator" touts as a top choice, because like most things in this world, great rankings, points, and reviews are most often *bought*, not earned.

Still... who is this Anderson you're talking about? From what you've repeatedly said about him, he sounds like quite the trite bastard... and so thought I'd inquire.

Cheers,

David

Audrey... is that you?

I have to admit, it's nice to see AFW working together for a change, instead of the rantings, accusations, and fanatical utterings that have tended to dominate the list as of late.

cheers,

David

Burton Anderson.

... which is what I meant by "(coupled with a database composed of memories of tastes she's had with and without foods)". Not exact, but close enough after a glass or two. :)

I don't know, really, but the word "flavors" is a bit limiting. Maybe the are the same. It's what I meant by

For this I prefer "palate" but would go for "flavors" or "taste" if we are being ruthless in de-jargonizing.

Problem with that one is that the word "consistency" is also used to mean "similarity over time", and "mouthfeel" doesn't have this against it. The word is not all that hard for someone who hasn't heard it to figure out either. It "seems like" it should mean pretty much what it does mean.

Ok, one point for you, one point for me. I don't do coffee. :)

Jose

But it is obviously a German word translated literally into English. I knew that the first time I saw it.

"Mouthfeel: Literally the impression the wine makes on the palate, whether light or heavy, silky or astringent."

This is clearly better described by 'consistency'.

Many English words are stolen. But in any case, if you like "consistency", fine. I can deal with it. :)

Jose

I looked in a couple of intoductory books yesterday:

Wine for Dummies

59793386/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4609702-3538503?ie=UTF8&s=books

Everything Wine Book

59793359/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4609702-3538503?ie=UTF8&s=books

Both specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany food. Anyone who looks in any introductory book will come across this. So, why the mystery? Why don't people know this? This means that the approach in 'tastings' of Italian wines must be somewhat different. You cannot compare a Pomerol to a Taurasi Riserva unless the latter is consumed with food. It's not fair to the wines..

Italy makes more wine than anyone else in the world. Almost all of it cheap jug wine that yes, is made to drink with a meal. It's horrible on it's own and can only be slightly tolerated with food. Hardly compatible to a fine wine from elsewhere or even from Italy.

The books were discussing fine bottled wines