Introduction

But that is what you do in 'tasting'. You don't swallow it, because you'll get drunk if you're tasting a number of wines.

But that's not 'tasting' as such.

Thank you. Finally someone else gets it.

Exactly. And thus, much of what you rant about isn't really happening.

In the first case, people are using the word "tasting" to mean "drinking with food". So your rant is misplaced there (and is probably more lexicographical anyway).

In the second case, well, that =is= tasting (whether they spit out or not), but it is done for the right reasons, and I suspect you aren't really ranting about =that= (professional or no).

The third case is posting "tasting notes" here. This is of benefit to those who can't taste (to choose) the wines in question, and are in the wine store faced with row upon row of pretty labels. Picking based on somebody else's posted tasting notes is not ideal, but beats picking based on bottle size or label color. (although I admit I once picked a bottle based on the name of the wine being the same as a town near my home - that bottle was disappointing) (more correctly, the wine in the bottle was disappointing)

And irrespective of that, sharing "tasting notes" is just another form of conversation about something we enjoy (drinking wine, with or without food).

So, while you're right to knock the pretension, there's probably a lot less of it here than you think.

Jose (this post rated 83.2638 points on the Modified Parker Posting Scale (TM), three stars on the Unified Usenet index, and B/B+ on the DaleW Appropriated Index. Grade disclaimer - A is an excellent post, B is a good post, anything rated C or below I wouldn't read even if the only other choice were a milk carton. :)

I go by what they write. If they say 'tasting', I always refer to the professional tasters' method: sip, swill, spit.

Perhaps. But I find most of the typical 'tasting notes' language opaque, and I have a lot of experience with wine (30+ years). I find little use for terms other than 'elegant' or 'well-structured' or 'raisiny' or 'fruity' or 'watery'. I don't know what 'forward' means, for instance (though I have seen it for deacdes), or most of the following typical post:

"...very high toned, tart berry fruit, cedar, VA palate: quite acidic, medium-full body, tons of cedar, berries, finishes on acidity"

I know what volatile acidity means, but 'cedar'? 'High-toned'? WTF is that? This where I begin to suspect a high level of BS.

I drink lots of wine, and have been trying lots of bottlings of Nero d'Avola lately. They all taste quite different. No two seem to be even remotely similar. Could I describe the differences? No. Could I identify different bottlings blind? Of course, if kept to 4-5 bottles.

Words have multple meanings. It is likely that another meaning is the one intended, in many of these cases.

Well, "elegant" doesn't help me decide whether this wine will go well with beef tips, or with pesto. To me, "forward" means that the flavors start out strong. "Assertive" to me would mean something similar. I do agree that there are far more words to pick from than are useful to ordinary wine drinkers like you and me, and that the differences between them are less than the differences in the usage of the same word from average person to average person (or even from day to day). However, words that describe the nose or the palate sensations of the wine, in an objective ("tastes like...") rather than subjective ("tastes good") sense are very useful. Alas, I'm not very good at it, which works to my detriment when I go to my own collection to pick out a bottle to go with what I'm eating.

How about "dark"? What is a "dark" wine? I can't tell you, but I can certainly tell you (on tasting) which wines strike me as "dark" (in flavor) and I can tell when I want a "dark" wine to go with my food. So that term is useful to me.

There was a wine I tried (I hesitate to say "tasted") in a Healdsburg which jumped out at me and screamed "Pizza!". Well, it didn't really taste like pizza (I Ên= tell the difference between the two) but that was the most accurate term I could find for that wine's flavors. So, in that sense I can see why people would notice "cedar notes". "Earthy" is another good term for me; it is similar to "dark" but different in a way I can't describe. It may not be meaningful to you. But that's ok. "Elegant" is not meaningful to me, but it says something to you.

And I have no idea what "Volitile acidity" means. I guess it's the "VA" in "VA palatte".

Could you remember the differences a year or two from now, when you go to choose one from your cellar? Identifying bottles blind is a nice trick, but the payoff is when you open the bottle you chose, and it turns out to be the match you were looking for. Being able to do that requires paying some attention to nose and palate while drinking wine.

Many of us call that "tasting", even if it's not in the style of the pros.

Jose

Almost all Italian wines taste 'earthy' to me. Barbera, Chianti, Primitivo, Aglianico, Ner d'Avola, Cannonou: they all taste 'earthy' to me. So, how does that convey anything to me?

'Elegant' is characteristic of Northern Italian wines such as a fine a Valtellina or Barberesco, or a 1997 Mastroberardino Taurasi Riserva. 'Elegant' starts at around $40 in my experience, and is rare even at that price point.

It's a defect in the wine. It makes the wine stink and taste like vinegar. See:

I think so. I can remember what Velletri or Dolcetto di Dogliani tastes like without having to take notes.

I would simply remember the name or write it down with the words: "good concentration; raisiny" or 'elegant' or 'intense'. That's all I need to know.

It's not 'tasting' in the true sense of "wine tasting".

Not all California wines taste earty to me. I primarily drink California wines (because I have the opportunity to go wine tast... er.. "selecting" every year when I'm there), so this is a useful charactaristic for me to note.

Then you have a better sensory memory than I.

That and the sum of your prior experience. I need a bit more to jog my memory, though I'm getting better.

Then it's not what you rant against. You just get your dander up at the misuse of a technical term when it's not being used as a technical term at all. :)

Perhaps you should encourage the use of the term "professional-type wine tasting" to mean what you mean by "tasting", to avoid confusion.

Jose

Drink more Italians! Try something like Velletri, Ramitello, Notarpanaro, Nero d'Avola, etc. Those are all earthy!

Try them and you'll know how distinctive they are. If you cannot tell the difference between these two wines, blind, you're dead.

I suggest you try a Chionetti Dolcetto di Dogliani. Owner, Quinto Chionetti:

Perhaps. But wine shops hold 'tastings' all the time. They get a bunch of bottles, provide some crackers and mild cheeses, and invite people in for a 'tasting'. To me, this is a complete waste of time if not actually criminal: you cannot tell a goddamned thing about many wines apart from drinking them during a full meal. You can tell differences, sure, but not how the wines do perform in the context for which they were created: as accompaniment to a meal.

"UC" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

cedar=cigar box. A quite common thing in Bordeaux. Anders

I have not experienced that aroma in Italian wine, to my knowledge.

I've got cedar notes in some older Chianti riservas and the few "super-Tuscans" that I've tried. For a reference, have you ever smelled the wood of a newly-sharpened pencil? That's red cedar you're smelling. As for your earlier questions, "high toned" refers to the nearly-sharp smells I was getting, not quite volatile acidity to me, but still produces that feeling in the corner of the jaw. You can detect all the BS that you want, but I calls 'em like I smells 'em.

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton

I know the smell of red cedar. I don't recall ever smelling it in wine.

The problem is I have no idea what you're talking about.

Mark, Quibble alert! I'd say high-toned indeed refers to VA, just not in the (subjective, I know) amounts that lead to a negative reaction. Light amounts of noticable VA provide "lift" to the fruit - I find this in trational Rioja (Lopez y Heredia being the best example), old style Barolo/Barbaresco, etc.

As to forward, it's ....well.....the opposite of backward. A wine that is more ready and accessible than one might expect is forward, a wine that is less accessible (but showing potential) is backward. The same can apply to vintages ('96 Piedmont is a bit backward, '97 is quite forward; '86 Bdx is backward, '99 is forward).

I usually ignore the Scarpetti scat, but find the definition of tasting as "spitting like the pros" pretty funny. My tasting groups include quite a few pros- retailers, wholesalers, importers, magazine editors, and newsletter writers. I've not noticed any of the pros spitting more than the rest of us, nor any defining our activities (drinking a bunch of wines with dinner) as not tasting or eschewing the use of the term tasting notes for their impressions. Most of us spit/dump the wines we like the least, and consume the ones we like best. Where the line is drawn depends mostly on whether driving is involved. Big trade tastings of course are different- usually held in the afternoon, with hundreds of wines, I typically taste 40 and spit 35.

Fair enough, Dale. In the case in point, I'm not convinced that it's

Was there even a question about this? I must've missed it if so.

Me too.

You must admit to being a pretty fair taster in your own right, though, Dale. I do think that there is merit to the notion that newcomers to fine wine should begin with the basics (what different grapes, regions and ages taste like; what I like and don't like) before getting too involved in large-scale tastings. However, one of the most formative experiences in my early wine education were the tastings hosted by a local retailer: 6-8 wines served over the course of 1-2 hours with plenty of food available. However, I see people going to very large-scale charity tastings who are just rushing from pour to pour and not taking any time to think about what they've got in the glass -- to me, that's not the way to learn anything about wine IMO (but maybe that's not their intent, either!)

Cheers! Mark Lipton

I think the way to learn about wines is to drink them with meals. You can have a large dinner with several friends, justifying three or four bottles of various types (PN, Barolo, Dolcetto, Barbera, Chianti, Cab, whatever). You have a small glass of each type with each dish, and take note of what the wines do for those dishes.

AGREED!!!!

People here tend to undervalue your contribution but often you are the voice of reason!

Mark, you're the chemist! I'm imprecise, but my references to VA are in the broadest sense- acetic acid, but also acetates such as ethyl acetate (isn't that the nail polish?). Sensitvity varies, and a pleasant lift to me might be horrible to others.

I'm definitely not a talented taster, at least when I'm tasting with John Gilman or the like. I do ok with my non-pro local group, but that's more experience than skill.

I agree that the best thing is to taste/drink, preferably within peer groups. Tasting 4-8 Cabernets next to a bunch of Nebbiolos will let one get a glimpse of what is typical of the grape. Smaller samples are more likely to be more influenced by producer characteristics. I mean, no thinking person would offer (post 1985) Gaja up as an example of Nebbiolo, right? I don't dislike Gaja, but most Sperss could slip into a tasting of Rolland Pomerols without an eyebrow being raised.

I tried to but she wouldn't fit in the glass.

(sorry about that!)

I may be able to tell the difference, but to remember which is which, and what to do with the difference (as in pairing with food) is a different issue.

They are marketing events. OF course, professional tastings could be said to be that too.

Well, there I disagree. I certainly cannot predict an entire meal worth of development from a taste, but I can certainly mentally compare it with other wines I've had with other meals, and get some basic qualities down. From there, I can assess how much I =like= the wine. These are questions I need answered before I choose wine to buy. While wine does taste different with food, one who pays attention to these differences can make a reasonable judgment.

I have done many tastings at wineries like that, have chosen wine on that basis, and when I open those wines a year later (or more) with food, I am usually not disappointed. I think I've chosen well, and if the tasting helped me choose, it gets the credit you deny it.

Jose

Actually, I'd like to see more of that. I like seeing a given wine with food it goes with, and the same wine with food it doesn't, as a learning experience. Wineries don't do that much, as their goal is slightly different.

Jose