The Auswine Forum

G'day everyone

I recently became aware of the antics of Matt 'Nostradamus' Skinner with his "I don't have to drink it to know what it's like" approach to wine reviews and this got me thinking. I know he has been the subject of discussion on this forum but I wondered if we had ever attempted to compile a list of characteristics that need to exist in order for someone to be a 'good' wine writer/ commentator.

In the interests of full disclosure I have to confess an alterior motive here. Not only am I wanting to improve my own humble efforts but I want to write an article for winepunters.com in the new year on this very topic.

The Tassie winemakers I have spoken to so far on this issue mention the obvious things like actually trying the wine and not having a commercial or other vested interest (are you reading this Matt?) but given that all of us have preferences some bias may well creep in - is this a form of vested interest ?
Some people have told me that writers don't take enough time trying the wine in different situations or over a long enough timescale.

But what else?

Do people have a favourite style? Is it necessary to have a score? Are short reviews the best reviews? Lots of jargon or plain english?

I would be very interested in what you all think and as always apologies if this topic has been done to death already.

Cheers
PJ

Yeah, I think actually trying the wine is pretty crucial. Then I think actually being honest with your impressions is necessary.

I also think a broadly experienced palate is important to put things into context.

The ultimate of course is the person who could transpose their passion for the wine onto paper, taking the reader through the waft of flavours and emotions that tickled the visual, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile sensations that culminated in the overall pleasure of the wine.

Cheers,

Monghead.

PJ

I think this is an extremely interesting and appropriate topic for a wine forum given we are all amateurs bar one (and it is excellent he has continued to join in the forum fun). Personally I believe there are two styles of wine writing. One is the highly analytical approach where 20 or 30 appropriate descriptors such as lemon, apples, pears, peaches, cassis, pencil shavings, muddy, earthy, blousy, flabby, taut, red fruit, black fruit, raspberry, plum, etc etc are used. Generally these long lists leave me dead in the water. The second approach is far more contextual. It sets the scene for the wine, flavours it with its environment, the foods it was consumed with, the people's reactions at the table.

Each month, I generally get the Decanter wine magazine. The panels get to sample far more of one particular style than I will ever get around to trying. Yet the one writer I really enjoy each month is Michael Broadbent. Ok in recent years as he has moved into his 80s, he has become a little more pompous. Nevertheless, he sets the scene so well for each every particular topic he is covering in his monthly column, never forgetting that a touch of humour will win a thousand hearts. This month he is describing a collection of rare Maderia. The first half of the column sets the background by describing the search for these great wines in the old cellars on the island. Having set the scene, he then goes on to describe one particular wine as follows: "To describe it adequately is beyond me: concentrated, tangy, floral with subtle whiffs of carmel, black treacle- heavens, I'll be purloining Parker's 100-point rating soon. On the palate, rich is a feeble understatement, its flavour reflecting its nose, leading to an attenuated, acidic finish."

When you break down this description of a wine from 1790, I like the fact he is honest and admits finding the appropriate terms for such a glorious wine is a difficult exercise, nothwithstanding he is one of the world's preeminent wine critics. He has kept his description of the flavours to a mininum, using 3 or 4 well chosen words rather than the old everything but the kitchen sink approach. I also enjoy the two points of humour which he uses to frame his description, one being the dig at himself, the other at Parker's rating system. So the take away: set the scene, use humour, evoke an emotional response.

Good wine writing is not something I can speak of from experience as I am middling/mediocre at it!!!!. However, I personally like reading reviews that do not go too far eg: using 6-10 descriptors and descriptors that 5% of the wine drinking population have ever or will ever encounter - quite frankly, I find this style of writing pretentious in the extreme and of no assistance in the slightest.
Studies have shown that even the most refined palates (Happy Daz? )can only discern a maximum of 4 different flavours at any given time, so anyone who uses (many) more than this are pulling your leg or hoping that you do not know this fact.

I will say that many armchair wine writers and bloggers are writing for the wine fanatics, so floury language that this market understand is not as pretentious as a mainstream reviewer that does this.

Ultimately, unless a writer has the power to negatively influence wine trends, the more that is written about wine the better.

I don't mind a few good descriptors in terms of the flavour profile myself as it's the only thing that lets you know what it might actually taste like. For example, I really like plummy and blackcurrent flavours so if I see a wine is in this flavour spectrum then I can be confident I'll like it more than say something with leather or feral flavours.

But I love a bit of humour and I like a description that tells a story and evokes my imagination or puts the tasting in context. I want to be entertained too.

And I also prefer a point system of some description. It lets me know where any given wine sits in the preferences of that writer. It allows me to calibrate my palate with theirs and gives me the best idea of the quality in their opinion. You obviously need to follow the particular writer for this to be of benefit but I do find it to be very useful.

Personally, I always like wine writers that can put wine in its historical and cultural context, and give you some background to the winery/wine they are reviewing. The more I know about a winery and what it is trying to do with a wine, the more I get out of it when I get around to drinking it.

I also like wine critics that review wines in settings other than a 100 wine a day laboratory. I know that I have been to massive tastings where I have tasted my 37th wine and not thought much of the wine, only to have that wine in a completely different setting a few weeks later and realise that I love the wine. While I'll acknowledge that professional wine critics are more experienced and have better trained palettes than mine, I can't help but think they are nevertheless similarly affected.

One final thing I like are critics that acknowledge their own likes and dislikes. I'll respect a critic that will give a wine an 88, but then acknowledge that if you have a particular like for that certain variety or style then you can add a few points to the score.

Rooman's example, humour or no, is a good one. I'm offended by unnecessary prosaic lyricism in tasting notes of such inordinate length that they seem to be hallucinatory flights of the commentators' ill-founded belief in their own literary ability. Pertinent, lucid and insightful descriptions of several of lines length are much preferable to the babbling of a poetic aspirant.

daz

Red wrote:Personally, I always like wine writers that can put wine in its historical and cultural context, and give you some background to the winery/wine they are reviewing. The more I know about a winery and what it is trying to do with a wine, the more I get out of it when I get around to drinking it.

I also like wine critics that review wines in settings other than a 100 wine a day laboratory. I know that I have been to massive tastings where I have tasted my 37th wine and not thought much of the wine, only to have that wine in a completely different setting a few weeks later and realise that I love the wine. While I'll acknowledge that professional wine critics are more experienced and have better trained palettes than mine, I can't help but think they are nevertheless similarly affected.

One final thing I like are critics that acknowledge their own likes and dislikes. I'll respect a critic that will give a wine an 88, but then acknowledge that if you have a particular like for that certain variety or style then you can add a few points to the score.

I rather agree with much you say. And there's always a "but". Many of the posters here have researched the wineries, e.g. gone to their websites (if any, but few worthwhile wineries these days haven't one). Halliday provides wineries' backgrounds, Mattinson has profiled a number of wineries and or/winemakers. For me, that's not a required part of a tasting note of the wine itself. The existential wine experience is more the role of contributors here who have the good fortune share quality food and wine in good company. It's somewhat unrealistic to expect professional wine journalists to always relate their tasting experience to food, ambience, company or whatever else may enhance the enjoyment of wine.

Halliday, Walsh, Mattinson don't hesitate to declare their own preferences so they have my respect.

However, I abhor the erroneous use of "palette" instead of "palate".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/palette

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/palate

Thus endeth another english language lesson.

Cheers

daz

daz wrote:I'm offended by unnecessary prosaic lyricism in tasting notes of such inordinate length that they seem to be hallucinatory flights of the commentators' ill-founded belief in their own literary ability.

There are quite a few clauses in that sentence

But then it is Christmas. Ho! Ho!

cheers

Carl

My personal take is I like a variety of wine in a variety of settings. Same goes for wine reviews

cheers

Carl

There's more to wine writing than just tasting notes. I tend to enjoy tasting notes themselves when written by someone with plenty of knowledge and experience, but mostly when such folk are able to convey so much without a shopping list of ingredients. Yes, Broadbent reads well. And Johnson, Robinson. Len Evans. Halliday (in prose form, not so much the WineComp). Campbell hits the mark reasonably well, too, although it does get hard when there's just not that much to say about a wine. US blogger Thor Iverson has a way too - he once wrote of a particularly new-worldish Italian wine that "this wine should come with it's own pimp" which conveyed such an image of the wine without using any conventional wine terminology. He wrote of a wine the other week "It's like drinking a migraine." Schildkneckt reads well too. Parker's text, on the other hand, is turgid.
The reviews in the late, not-lamented 'Wine X' magazine, on the other hand, were just puerile.

But tasting notes are only the half of it. I'm at the point where I'd almost rather read something written by someone who knows more about writing than about wine. That sadly applies to too few of us. And these days, conventional outlets for writing seem to be ever narrowing - not that there's less writing around, just that it's in the hands of amateurs (sometimes gifted, sometimes not) and on the net, all of which makes it harder for anyone to actually make a living from it (the world's been awash with 'The future of Wine Writing' over the last few years). I don't suppose too many blogs make much money for their authors...
cheers,
Graeme

Agree with Graeme, above, and his list of good writers (I'd add Oz Clarke to the list). And I like the "It's like drinking a migraine" quote... reminds me of the best brief review I've seen on a forum: "Sore thoat in a bottle".

For my two-cents, I think an excellent quality in wine reviewing is brevity. If you can encapsulate the wine briefly with just a few descriptors, its paints a clearer picture for me than a long-winded one with a shopping list aromas and tastes.

Thanks guys

Some very interesting and useful pointers here. You have given me lots to think about regarding my own writing.

The mention of Oz Clarke was interesting given that SBS is (re?)running the Oz and James wine adventure at the moment.
I know they are both playing up for the camera but Oz does come off as a bit of a wine tosspot. Seeing James blow his whistle everytime he thinks Oz is being a "ponce" is priceless. You can take the boy out of top gear but you can't take top gear out of the boy! Is Oz's TV persona the way he writes?

Which leads me to another thought, in order to like a particular writer do you have to imagine that they are someone with whom you would like to socialise or is it just about the information / entertainment?

I also wonder how influential writers and commentators really are? Are there writers you follow or is their work just a starting point for your own research?

Lastly, one of my pet hates about 'critics' in general is that they often can't or don't do whatever it is that they are criticising (eg film critics who have never made a film). Does it matter if a writer / commentator has no practical experience in the wine industry? Obviously I am refering to professional writers here rather than forum posters or those who are clearly writing from a 'consumer' angle.

Cheers
PJ

For the benefit of your future career path, below is one of the legendary tasting notes posted offshore just after the turn of the century [reproduced in full]

"Our two Visitors from the East followed the Star, and it led them to Chapeau! in the Richmond district. And we ALMOST managed to get through the evening without a corked wine, but that''s a story for later in this note. I''ll be nice and skip our discussion of the Seleucids versus the Ptolemies, and why I went to Antioch to shoot up the place.

One commences with whites, although one could argue that seven commence with the whites. The opener was a ''97 Marcel Deiss pinot gris Beblenheim, and an odd duck it is. Never would have guessed it to be a pinot gris nor a Deiss. Somewhat blowsy, more than a hint of residual sugar, slightly oxidative without being oxidized, and a bit of a chemical note manifest as a slight gewurtz-like bitterness in the finish. Not at all unpleasant, just odd and unexpected.

Next up, a ''97 Monteillet St-Joseph blanc, brought in by my usual irregular means. Ah, would that American roussannes and marsannes had this degree of minerality, this sort of balance and light touch, this sort of floral nose, this length of finish! Not to mention the $6 price tag. Of course it doesn''t have the weight, depth, or complexity of a fine white Hermitage, but it''s still the Real Deal.

The Great White Hope emerges, a ''98 Niellon Chassagne-Montrachet Clos St-Jean, from a vineyard better know for its reds. Within the idiom of barrel-fermented, oaked and malo''d chardonnays, no one does it better than Niellon, and this wine, from a less-than-stellar vineyard and a less-than-stellar vintage comes through as a rich, intense, perfectly balanced wine. Quite a mouthful, and at a relatively bargain price.

Nathan pulls out an odd-looking bottle, a present from Joe Dressner, the infamous ''93 Overnoy Arbois Pupillon. Never look a gift horse in the mouth, but at the same time, no need to stick your face in its butt. Lightish color, showing plently of signs of oxidation, despite the huge sulfur content, both free and bound, not to mention an interesting mix of mercaptans. Imagine, if you will, shoving an M-80 up the hind parts of a skunk, shoving the skunk up the hind parts of a sweaty shepherdess with a yeast infection and on her period. Now the explosion ensues- catch her week-old thong (a gift from Brad Kane) as it flies by. Give it a good hard sniff and contemplate the layers of aroma. Voila! You have the Overnoy. It was all I could do to actually taste it. And I''m (gag!) pleased to report that (gag!) the flavor was consistent with the aroma. Well, at least if you mix in some battery acid. A wine too dirty for me to enjoy- contemplate that and be very, very afraid.

This Overnoy says a lot about Joe Dressner. Some clever guy would taste this and buy a bottle as a gag gift. Joe, ever the man truly committed to humor, actually bought this in quantity, imported it, and sells it for money. THAT is the kind of dedication and willingness to go the extra yard for a laugh that sets him apart from his fellow Man. Many thanks, Joe!

Six or seven glasses of water almost got the taste out of my mouth (though the memory of that horror will linger on for decades- need to call my lawyer about this). But to complete the job, I gulped a glass of ''91 Verset Cornas. This bottle showed atypically old (storage?) with more than a slight whiff of volatility, but the core was definitely there. Great black fruit and granite flavors, a bit of tannic punch still remaining. And it only got better through the evening. Along the ''91 theme was the ''91 Ogier Cote-Rotie, a true classic of the genre. Broad, sweet, floral, intense, but not at all heavy or overblown. Thunderbird Award.

The only thing that saved the ''98 Dutschke St. Jakobi Shiraz from being the worst wine of the night was the Overnoy. You could tell the age of this wine by sawing it in half and counting the rings. Pure chocolate, vanilla, and cocoanut, without a trace of that annoying wine character.

The ''88 Musar is another classic, quite full and rich for a Moose. Lots of volatility, which seemingly gave the spicy-gunpowder nose a lift. Aagain, a wine that just got better and better with air. Needs another 20 years, though. And we finished the Drys with a ''78 Chapoutier Hermitage from the Max Chapoutier days. A little oxidized, but only a little. Big leathery, meaty aromas, a surprisingly delicate flavor. Not really classic Hermitage in the manner of a ''78 Chave, but quite delicious.

Dessert proved a lesson. The ''97 Raymond-Lafon was served and Stacy immediately piped up, "Is this a little corky?" Right as usual (except for when she said "Yes" to Mike). It was indeed badly corked, yet the wet-newspaper corky aromas were a bit under the threshold of some of the table denizens. Popping a second bottle beautifully underscored the insidious nature of corkiness- by comparison, it was a HUGELY better wine, yet tasted alone, the first bottle would not have registered "corked" to most; it would have just come across as a lousy wine.

Rob rushed me back to BART at speeds worthy of chase scenes from Dirty Harry movies. And a good thing, I made the last train out by a minute. I hope we didn''t freak out David Risch too badly with our rough California ways. And Nathan is, of course, right at home here, given his proclivities and the reputation of the Castro. Not that there''s anything wrong with that."

Hilarious and brilliant and it certainly painted a very vivid picture even if he may have been a little harsh with the dutschke. The Overnoy certianly sounds interesting.

Kris, somehow I thought our mutual senses of humor might run in tandem on this one. These were a couple of my other favourites on a distant thread on favourite tasting notes, thou all agreed that the one above was as one forumite put: "game, set and match".

It was a great wine in its time, but like the premature death of a popular actor whose time has passed, its graceful exit is what might be called a good career move.
Ben Giliberti.

Despite the reports of it going down hill, it is clearly enjoying the ride.
Michael Broadbent on 1934 Lafite.

… distilled dew and honey with the fragrance of all the fresh wild flowers of the field greeting the dawn.
André Simon, on Château d’Yquem, quoted in Wine Quotations, edited by Helen Exley, 1994.

Enough poop to make you look at the bottom of your shoes.
Stuart Yaniger on a nicely bretted Rhône

Fantastic writing.

I overheard someone the other day. Not related to wine as such but a classic turn of phrase never the less, he was talking about someone with a "room temperature IQ".

I will use that one

As someone who has been known to write an article or two for the odd wine magazine here and there, I'd like to present a few keywords that are important to me:

Honesty

Integrity

Acceptance of different styles (and knowledge of those styles)

Tasting the damned wine

Restaurant service and / or wine making experience (sales experience doesn't count, sorry)

Cellaring knowledge (to provide advice)

Ability to speak and write English well (my pet irk with many-a-writer)

Openness to constructive (and even non-constructive) criticism

You would hope that the ranting writer above who harped on about the Overnoy Arbois Pupillon knew that it is bottled without sulphur and produced from the humble Poulsard variety...... cellaring it for 10 years is probably not the best course of action

With wine blogs everyone gets to have their say now and everyones opinion is valid though sometimes misguided.....as far as print hacks....Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, Andrew Jefford, Nicholas Belfrage, Allen Meadows, David Schildknecht, John Gilman, Kermit Lynch, Alice Feiring and a handful of others get my attention.....mainly because their writing strikes a chord with me and they write about wines I am personally interested in.

David, I bet you also go around at Christmas telling wee kids that Santa Claus doesn't really exist.

griff wrote:

daz wrote:I'm offended by unnecessary prosaic lyricism in tasting notes of such inordinate length that they seem to be hallucinatory flights of the commentators' ill-founded belief in their own literary ability.

There are quite a few clauses in that sentence

But then it is Christmas. Ho! Ho!

cheers

Carl

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment to some extent Carl - that's why there are so many clauses.

Speaking of clauses, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and best wishes for the coming year.

daz

daz wrote:

griff wrote:

daz wrote:I'm offended by unnecessary prosaic lyricism in tasting notes of such inordinate length that they seem to be hallucinatory flights of the commentators' ill-founded belief in their own literary ability.

There are quite a few clauses in that sentence

But then it is Christmas. Ho! Ho!

cheers

Carl

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment to some extent Carl - that's why there are so many clauses.

Speaking of clauses, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and best wishes for the coming year.

daz

I just took the opportunity to make a Santa joke

cheers

Carl

Yeah, got that, thought I'd play on it too.

Cheers