The Auswine Forum

Hi All

I am curious for the forums opinions on why many choose to devote most, if not all, of their tasting notes to associations with fruits, leather, cassis etc.? It seems a bit pointless to me. Sure, associated tastes and aromas have their place, but IMO the more informative tasting notes focus on aspects of pleasure derived, drinking windows, structure, balance, style, etc. Just because a wine smells of blackcurrant or leather doesn't necessarily mean its a pleasant aroma. Maybe some people dont like aromas of leather, and hence may steer clear of a particular wine, but do these characters really influence people's buying decisions?

Justin

Excellent Post Justin. I've always thought these kind of tasting notes were bullshit. You know the sort, "flavours of chocolate and caremel mixed with pencil shavings blueberry's and old horse saddle dragged through oily mint leaves."

What does that tell me? Maybe these are useful to some people and they can help to determine if it is to your taste or not. More often than not though, when tasting the identical wine, if I were to give a flavour profile it is totally different to the tasting note I read. This was even proven in a recent study where one group was largely unable to match the wines to the tasting notes given by another group. Both groups being "connisseurs" given to writing tasting notes on a regular basis.

Sure, associated tastes and aromas have their place, but IMO the more informative tasting notes focus on aspects of pleasure derived, drinking windows, structure, balance, style, etc

My thoughts are exactly the same as your's on this side of things. I'm interested in the balance, power, size, complexity, finish, structure, etc etc. when I read the notes of someone like Robert Parker these are the things I am looking for.

If I'm writing I will say that the aromas or flavour are great / spectacular blah blah but the specifics of what they are is not the main issue. I either like them or I don't. Just like someone else may like them or not. So why specify in such depth? It is the quality of the wine that I am trying to convey. I'm not saying that general flavours or specifics if noteworthy should not be mentioned, just that this doesn't tell me anything about whether it is good wine or not. Coca cola can have aromas or flavours of blah blah, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get a glass of Petrus.

I can recognise that a particular wine is great but just not really like the way it tastes (not faulty) just not to my taste. If I am buying a wine based on the tasting notes of others I am buying on the quality of the wine (allowing for varietal, region, style etc) but this is no guarantee I will like the taste of it more or less than another wine. Its just one of those things that requires personal experience to determine.

I tend to agree with both of you however some quite important info can be gleaned from the taste of a wine such as how developed it is and whether it has any faults.

It also lets you align your taste preferences and palate to the writer's although the point is taken about people not seeing the same thing.

I like to read about flavour profiles but I am more interested in people saying if the liked it

Good point, Justin.

I believe that a good tasting note should be like a good wine: balanced. That is, it should have appropriate emphasis on fruit and flavour and at the same time sufficient detail on structure and quality.

There is an ongoing discussion as far as emphasis on each is concerned. In many ways it's the traditional New World vs Old World fruit versus structure debate.

For me there's no question, a good wine, and hence a good note, must place an emphasis on both. Tannin, acid, balance, length, longevity and overall quality are as important to me as intensity and specific fruit and non-fruit aromas and flavours.

Cheers,
Tyson.

I try to make it a rule to address the issue of structure and length in every tasting note I write, with mixed success I suspect! Much of this way of thinking way emphasised to me at an MW seminar I attended in Sydney 2 years ago where Andrew Corrigan was speaking on this very subject. Now, he was addressing his remarks primarily to those who were enrolled in the MW course, and needing to work on their blind tasting techniques. And it rather seemed to me that some of the comments he made didn’t perhaps apply so much when you could see the bottle label in front of you.

The crux of what he was saying was to taste intelligently. For blind tasting, this took the format of making an observation, and then drawing a conclusion from it. So from the colour you might make specific inferences to the age of the wine. Cedary aromas might suggest French oak. Fine tannins and a slightly savoury quality may suggest an Old World wine. Medium bodied wine with a long finish – could be a decent quality Bordeaux. The perfumed, violet-like aromas you detected on the nose, combined with your other observations lead you to Margaux – a Segla, or Palmer perhaps.

Now if I have the bottle in front of me (no jokes, please), there’s really very little I need to know about aromas, particularly if the wine is young. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt like just writing “smells like cabernet/shiraz” or “pinot aromas”! Perhaps I just take that fruit aspect for granted – among younger wines, especially the local drops, it’s the structural differences which are the most interesting, and the best guide to the quality of the wine.

The other thing I’ve struggled with is the traditional layout of the sensory areas on the tongue – you know, the ‘plan’ we’ve all seen somewhere in the guides. I seem to find the tannin & acid susceptibilities to be very mobile. Sugar not so much – I agree that it tends to be biased towards front palate, but I find tannin to be very portable! I’m always disappointed in a cabernet that doesn’t seem to exist much past the middle palate. It’s only half a doughnut! Invariably, it’s the wines that coat your palate evenly which I find the greatest – even if I can’t really pick more than one or two distinct aromas in the bouquet. Maybe it depends whether you’re writing a tasting note as a ‘scientific guide’ to a wine, or whether you intend it to be a literary gem…

I know I’ve rambled further on this subject a few times on the old forum – I should have kept that stuff and just cut-and-pasted!
cheers,
Graeme

TORB wrote:I agree totally with the sentiments above. Frequently I use a comment like "the aroma is quintessential Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon" because its pointless to string 5 scents together if you can sum it up in a few words.

If anyone is interested in a format that will provide a plan to enable them to write notes using all these elements, a form that may help can be found at http://www.torbwine.com//images/Torb%20Tasting%20Sheet.pdf

Hi Ric

The tasting sheet you have created looks like a great resource.

How would you feel about your note here, and the link in it, being put in the archives, and perhaps in the beginner's section too so it will stay current for those who would like to use it?

Hi Gavin,

Happy to have it archived and those who are not red bigots (God bless them ) can adapt it to their own usage.

Cheers
Ric

All in all some valid points both Justin & Regan, although I can see how the boquet of a wine can influence the palate. Ever tried tasting a wine with a cold when the old nose isn't working so well. A little experiment, next time when tasting block the nose and see if there is any difference.

I've always thought these kind of tasting notes were bullshit

Not entirely, some people have amazing orafactory capabilities ( I wish I did) as it can only enhance the pleasure of drinking wine.

I'm interested in the balance, power, size,

Could you please explain further what you mean by size & power?

when I read the notes of someone like Robert Parker these are the things I am looking for.

Everyone has a wine writer/critic that they follow, I must admit Parker is one person I don't read.

Justin & all,

IMO there's two sides to the tasting note; the objective and the subjective.

The objective tells you about the wine's structure and balance.
The subjective tells you what I think of the wine.

In my view the description of the fruit and oak characteristics belongs to the objective, not the subjective.

If I'm tasting a Sauvignon Blanc there's a great deal of difference between an oak fume blanc style and a grassy herbaceous stye. Then again there are those that just taste of passionfruit. If you're keen on one style it is secondary that all three wines have good structure and balance.

Likewise it's not enough that I tell you that I adore the wine without some kind of context why I do so.

That's the importance of all the words, to convey to the reader the key elements of the wine, and then whether or not, in the writer's assessment at that time, whether or not they think the wine is any good.

As such the context of flavour profile and components matter.

Murray

Must admit to sympathizing with Justin and Regan on this one. I often shake my head in amazement at some tasting notes to the point where I ‘switch off’. Each to their own I guess.

But Justin’s post reminded me of comments made by a man whom I hold in high esteem, and who (with his winemaking team) IMHO produces the best reds in the country, John Middleton. In his last newsletter he had this to say on the topic of “gaining of wisdom about wine aroma and wine mouthfeel”. He says “My advice would be not to be intimidated by any lack of agreement with many of the suggestions proffered. If a raspberry smells like a raspberry why can’t a Cabernet wine smell like a Cabernet?”

He goes on for a couple more para’s, but you probably get his point, and I for one agree.

The key to me in reading about wine is balance, cellerability, pleasure, etc. The very points Justin (and Regan) make. Don’t waffle on about ‘thrice pressed burnt fig leaves’, ‘nugget boot polish’, ‘baked terra rossa earthiness’, etc ‘cause I simply can’t relate to such phrases.

The single most important thing for me when I read the notes of others is calibration to that individuals taste and did they like it?

Good topic.

Cheers
Ian

Have some sympathy with the views here both in respect of descriptors and food matches. With some tasters the more obscure the thing the wine resembles, the better (not just plums but Patgonian satsuma plums lightly poached in Kirsch), similarly the food matches (saddle of hare anyone?). Never use a simple term like blackcurrant when you can use a more "sophisticated" one like cassis. Not to mention what have now become hackneyed phrases like "unctuous" and "complexed".

My 2 cents.

Matthew

MatthewW wrote:Never use a simple term like blackcurrant when you can use a more "sophisticated" one like cassis. Not to mention what have now become hackneyed phrases like "unctuous" and "complexed".
Matthew

Matthew,

Whilst I agree with the overall sentiment of your post to me, cassis and blackcurrant are in fact two different tastes. Cassis is sweeter like the liqueur, blackcurrent is a bit more savoury like the raw berry.

Oh, and here's another one - complexity. I've heard this described (and sometimes I agree) as a cop-out phrase when you just can't think of anything to say. And it's true, I think, that in itself it's a meaningless phrase. Accordingly, I tend to use it only in the negative - as I think I did on my only TN posting on the new forum. "...not much complexity..." This sweeping phrase covers a multitude of sins, and is really just a synonym for 'simple'.

Now, if I'm lazily tempted to use 'complex' (which I do from tim to time) I try and describe why. What makes it complex? The interplay of what aspects? The tannins? Coarse, fine? Persistence? Fruit sweetness? Oak sweetness? What's causing you to find it complex?

It's hard to be disciplined about it. I try to avoid saying things that are meaningless just to pad out a tasting note. I phrase I read often (not often here, and not just in amateur notes) is "...great complexity..." which means precisely nothing!

cheers,
Graeme

TORB wrote:

MatthewW wrote:Never use a simple term like blackcurrant when you can use a more "sophisticated" one like cassis. Not to mention what have now become hackneyed phrases like "unctuous" and "complexed".
Matthew

Matthew,

Whilst I agree with the overall sentiment of your post to me, cassis and blackcurrant are in fact two different tastes. Cassis is sweeter like the liqueur, blackcurrent is a bit more savoury like the raw berry.

Few people eat blackcurrants in their raw state. Mostly they are presented in some sweetened processed form. In any case, it is not as if creme de cassis is a particularly popular product in Australia.

Matthew

MatthewW wrote:Few people eat blackcurrant's in their raw state. Mostly they are presented in some sweetened processed form. In any case, it is not as if creme de cassis is a particularly popular product in Australia.

Matthew,

You are entirely correct however both blackcurrant in its savoury form and cassis in its sweetened form are very common tastes and aromas in Australian red wine and are different from each other. Do you have a better descriptor that will differentiate between these two tastes.

To be honest I think people should be as descriptive as they can be, as mentioned above, we knows certain, if note most elements are subjective, that was well proven by the Sydney top 100. However, if someone tastes plum or black currant by all means tell me. Im old enough now to make my own mind up about wine and I like comparing what I taste with what others have tasted. It helps align palates.

Regarding the use of the word complex, I dont think this is a bad descriptor, for me it means there is an array of flavours that together produce a whole greater than the sum of the parts. It has to be read in conjunction with the rest of the note to get an understanding of what those flavours might be. Its no worse than using the word "simple".

I would encourage everyone to write notes, experienced or inexperienced, even if that involves using the old classic descriptors that those in know automatically attribute. It builds confidence in wine and gets peoiple thinking more about what they are tasting, one day by doing this they will be able to write more detailed and decriptive notes.

Anyway, look forward to seeing some tasting notes from you guys in the future to see how you tackle it...

Cheers, Adam

A good topic, reminiscent of some I have enjoyed previously. I find the comments of many redolent of the tall poppies that grew in my grandmother's garden so long ago.

Ah, finally I have been able to use the words "reminiscent" and "redolent" in the same post!

Seriously though, it is indeed a good topic. It raises some questions - do you write the tasting notes for yourself, or for others? Why dumb them down just because the general audience hasn't eaten satsuma plums, when those who have will know exactly the nuance implied by that flavour descriptor? I have seen a marked improvement in TORB's TNs since he got the Nez du Vin kit some time ago for example. The descriptors are clear and confident, and on the money. Nothing wrong with being this specific in TNs I don't think.

I agree with the comments that a TN should contain elements of flavour profile, as well as those describing structure (acid and tannin, plus freight weight) and length. I also think that Murray's comments re objectivity/subjectivity are spot on. What I think would be great in TNs is a reference to other wines that are similar in quality/flavour/enjoyment. Kind of like the "people who bought this book also bought..." reference at Amazon.com etc.

It's also about style of writing. Some people try and do the Gen X thing (invariably this style turns me off), others a sports-type take. Others try to be Ocker, others matey, others still old-school old boy. My favourite style is probably Jancis Robinson's. I like an almost a cookbook style of writing the most. Invariably gets me wanting to drink the stuff. I wonder why wine as a comestible is not written about more in this style?

This is excellent. Finally people are starting to post!

Could you please explain further what you mean by size & power?

John, by size I mean the mouthfeel of the wine, eg; to what percentage does it effect all of the tasting areas of the tongue. Is it overwhelming or hits strong in one area and not another, suppose this is closely related to balance but a wine can have good balance without great size. Power is intensity of the flavours, pure and simple.

As for Parker, appreciate your comments there. I'm not his biggest fan either but I still read his notes in combination with others. Generally I disregard the score and look soley at his descriptions of the wine. I had a quick look at some notes today and he seems to not overuse specific flavour / aroma descriptions (obviously uses when appropriate, just not verbose) but concentrates on the other aspects of the wine that we have been discussing.

As for 'complexity', ha ha.
It certainly means 'something'. I read a TN: that says "great complexity" as: Multiple flavours / aromas (a complex blend that you can't always put your finger on) ie; not one dimensional (only one specific flavour/ aroma discernable)[/quote]

Shit, might have to actually think a bit more for any Tasting Notes I post.

Normally I just write any old thing as it's usually more of an impression of the wine, as I HATE taking tasting notes when I'm drinking wine (which is my usual situation). The only time I take proper note's is at a formal tasting. Just me. It reduces my 'hedonistic pleasure' level by taking notes in a social situation.

"The general mode of thinking always leans on the cliche and on the abstract. People do not return to their palates. People are afraid that they do not know how to taste. They prefer to lean on rules. With rules you don't have to think; you don't have to taste. You just have to follow the rules - and they will destroy you every time.

Regan wrote: I read a TN: that says "great complexity" as: Multiple flavours / aromas (a complex blend that you can't always put your finger on) ie; not one dimensional (only one specific flavour/ aroma discernable)

[/quote]

I think this is what Corrigan was getting at (although it wasn't him who made comment about complexity) when he spoke about drawing conclusions from observations. It may be that with the greatest of wines the word is suitable, as they seem to become so seamless, where nothing obviously stands out, yet the wine is complete. But with anything less than 'perfection', it ought to be possible to pick at the components of the wine.

I should add, lest you think me to prissy about tasting notes, that's it's all really in the context of someone else trying to glean as much information as possible from your notes. If they're only meant as a jog for your own memory, then whatever phrases you want are fine. I'm always wary of a note with only a little information, but claiming to describe a 'complex' wine. I remember at a wine course I did (Ryde TAFE) years ago in the early part of the 'sensory evaluation' module, one of the girls in the class offering the phrase "quite nice" when asked to say something about the wine at hand. Not very helpful!!

cheers,
Graeme

Regan, thankyou for the explanation.

This certainly has been a great topic, although the views are somewhat split, ie be descriptive or not so, each opinion is very interesting as it highlights the differences in wine assessment/critique.

No wonder wine is such an interesting subject

Justin B. wrote:I am curious for the forums opinions on why many choose to devote most, if not all, of their tasting notes to associations with fruits, leather, cassis etc.? It seems a bit pointless to me. Sure, associated tastes and aromas have their place, but IMO the more informative tasting notes focus on aspects of pleasure derived, drinking windows, structure, balance, style, etc. Just because a wine smells of blackcurrant or leather doesn't necessarily mean its a pleasant aroma. Maybe some people dont like aromas of leather, and hence may steer clear of a particular wine, but do these characters really influence people's buying decisions?

Hi Justin,

Most people will ask "What does the wine taste like?"

Taste is a simple word really. Wine is much more than taste. It is flavour, texture, structure (tannins), balance, length and that word complexity.
I use lots of descriptors (see my blood warming red wines tasting note - it is full of descriptors) because wine is a mass of aromas and flavours. The more I smell the more I get. Some wines are just so glorious in their aromas that I'd just about be happy smelling it all night. But when you're tasting through a series of wines there is just not enough time to so that. And there are plenty more descriptor words for flavour profiles than there are for texture, blance and length. So if the descriptors pour out of the wine to the brain, use them I say.

But sometimes it isn't so easy. Some wines are quite difficult to describe - especially pinot noir. I just about had to drink a whole bottle - not on my own of course - to write a tasting note the other day because the wine was just so complex (that word again) in its aromas and flavours. It was a pleasurable task indeed. The wine had plenty of stuff that is quintessential pinot - but how do you portray this to someone who wants to know why this is diffent from the next one, what sets it apart from the others?

When I write my tasting note the bottom line is that it is primarily for me. It's got to make sense to me when I go back and read it and if someone else can relate to it, well that's great!

Cheers,
Sue