Wine Tasting Terminology— The Poetry and the Prose (GuildSomm Article)

Which of the following technical terms do you employ?

I’m surprised GuildSomm isn’t mentioned more on this board - it’s a phenomenal resource (and the podcasts are excellent). The Science of Tasting article is exhaustive and not to be missed (though you must be a member to view). However they have made public a superb overview of increasingly common technical descriptors:

Wine Tasting Terminology— The Poetry and the Prose (Geoff Kruth, MS)

I’ve been gravitating more and more towards this type of language because I find it is more objective, more precise, and I can more easily find a common ground with other tasters. I’m curious what you all think of these terms.

In theory I completely agree. It’s the exact opposite of the Matt Kramer school of writing - “layers, surprise,” etc., which I find completely off-putting.

The problem is that unless people really know those things, they use the words wrong, or attribute things to substances that aren’t there. And I’m not a big fan of the chart either.

One of the things that the writer should know is that our perception of something can rarely be traced to a specific molecule. We perceive things very differently depending on what comes along with it and the concentration of the substance. As Linda Bisson, who’s probably done more research into methoxypyrazines than anyone said, they “act synergistically with other compounds to modify aroma and flavor”. So unless you’ve done some chemistry on a wine, I’d be careful of attributing specific characteristics to a single compound.

But yeah, overall, it’s a far better way to describe wine than trying to wax poetic about it. Most people aren’t Shakespeare after all. Hell, maybe Shakespeare wasn’t really Shakespeare.

Most of these terms are about faults, not pleasure. Wine is for me, about pleasure.

Personally, when I write a note, I want to explain why I did, or did not get pleasure from the wine and how much that wine moved me, one way or the other. My notes are written to hopefully help others understand what I found in the glass, and how I arrived at that conclusion, as in theory, while they might come to a different conclusion, that is generally speaking, what they are going to find in their glass, should they taste the same wine.

Good points, all. I would push back a bit on “our perception of something can rarely be traced to a specific molecule.”

It’s true that lots of organoleptic perceptions (a.k.a. smells) are complex in molecular origin. In some cases our olfactory processing system lies by association. Olivier Humbrecht, MW, brought up the example of how things can smell salty, because we associate salty environment (the ocean, the beach) with the smell of iodine (link). Salt itself has no smell, but when you smell iodine, you perceive saltiness.

In other cases (and this is what Bisson explained far more concisely), smell is non-linear. Take Brettanomyces for example. At a very low level it may be undetectable. At a slightly higher level, it can present as a vague spice/savoriness/earthiness/unidentifiable complexity. At a slightly higher level you might perceive faint animal or barnyardy aromas. At an even higher level it might be clear we are dealing with Brett, and there may be identifiable 4-EthylPhenol animal scents. Go up a notch and you may even perceive clove (4-ethylguaiacol) which is another key by-product of Brett.

Taking all this into account, I would say that the complexities don’t prevent us from making claims of reasonable certainty. I might be uncertain of Brett at a low concentration, but I would be fairly confident that if a wine smells like a sweaty horse took a bath in Cantillon there’s some B. bruxellensis involved.

I think an even stronger argument for this type of technical knowledge is that MW and MS candidates are gravitating to it more and more. Most people don’t care much for blind tasting, it seems, but you can’t argue that it forces the taster to separate his perceptions into objective and subjective facts about the wine. If you want to know how precise you are at identifying pyrazine, ask yourself: “When was the last time I noted Pyrazine in a blind tasting, and the wine was not a Bdx varietal?” We could go into type-I and type-II errors, but that’s a topic for another thread

I may be miscounting, but only 5 or 6 of those are faults.

Actually, of the above descriptors, only TCA is always a fault. All the others can be part of a classic wine profile. In fact, this seems like a classic wine exam question:

Which technical faults can be considered stylistic in certain regions and producers?

Stylistic oxidation/acetaldehyde to a some degree is common in older wines, Rioja, Savennieres, Barolo, Brunello - and other regions that emphasize oxidative aging (and Musar).

VA can be characteristic of Amarone, some Cali Cabs (and Musar).

Brett is found just about everywhere, often intentionally (and Musar).

Reduction/sulfur compounds can be prominent in many styles, especially Riesling, Burgundy and young Rhone Syrah. It has been argued that “minerality” is actually a combination of reductive compounds, and high acidity (which may cause the reduction, in part). I think mild reduction is much more common than most non-winemakers are aware of.

The other descriptors (e.g. TDN, autolysis) are generally not considered faults unless found in excess.

What did I miss?

All of these terms (besides TCA) are important objective features in wines that give many pleasure. To me, that makes them worth understanding.

Personally, when I write a note, I want to explain why I did, or did not get pleasure from the wine and how much that wine moved me, one way or the other. My notes are written to hopefully help others understand what I found in the glass, and how I arrived at that conclusion, as in theory, while they might come to a different conclusion, that is generally speaking, what they are going to find in their glass, should they taste the same wine.

I just discovered your site— Major respect for publishing such a broad and deep tasting note set! Given that you are approaching note-writing as a critic, I understand not using technical language that is more about the wine and not its emotional impact.

I think we all have two languages - one in which we describe the wine for ourselves and our peers, and the other with which we describe wine to our friends, customers, readers, and other lay-people. For me, notes are a way to preserve memories, and to learn and find patterns in wines I taste.

I admire the poetry of writers like Jancis Robinson ("…like satin, but with a print on it…"), but I also really like the objectivity and precision of terms like “IBMP.” There’s something awesome about being able to read about a wine and recognize its components the first time you taste it. I recently had this experience with Savennieres, Lopez de Heredia, and Hermitage. For me the key to connecting description to experience and memory is having good descriptors. If you say a wine is “spicy”, that can mean terpenes in the case of gewurz, saffron/ginger botrytis, rotundone, low levels VA or Brett. Isn’t it better to be specific?

I recognize and even have a fair understanding of all of these terms, and I do not think these terms are helpful in tasting notes. For example, acetaldehyde is generally present in wine in varying amounts and may be the result of several processes. Also, SO2 can mask the perception of acetaldehyde, so two wines with equal amounts may have much different organoleptic characteristics. What is important to me is the organoleptic qualities of the wine, which may or may not be due to acetaldehyde.

Rajiv,
Very thoughtful as usual and I appreciate the insights. I just abhor oxidation, VA, and Brett can be complexing up to a point, but not in excess. So while these can be viewed as objective features, subjectivity in informal tasting notes is fine by me, and I would not find these classic wine profiles. I will never drink Sherry!

I’m not so sure that either language is particularly faithful.

Fruits and rainbows fail by being impossibly specific and at the same time impossibly generic.

Lists of chemicals fail by Auto-Tuning “Nessun Dorma” at retune speed zero.

I’d also hazard a guess that proficiency in either language tends to provide more pleasure to the performer than to the audience. (Which is fine, so does drinking the wine itself.)

Well, that’s true Travis. And that’s one of several reasons I don’t write a lot of TNs.

but to Rajiv - you had me until this:

I think an even stronger argument for this type of technical knowledge is that MW and MS candidates are gravitating to it more and more.

Yikes! That’s not a game-changer for me. I think the reasons they’re gravitating towards it is because there might actually be some real knowledge there. I’ve tasted with lots of MWs and somms over the years and they’re no better than any wine drinkers with some experience insofar as tasting goes. So picking up some technical knowledge is a pretty good idea but it doesn’t sway the argument. Still, I do like the general concept.

And as to the suggestion that one might not want to focus on wine faults, that’s a fair point but being able to describe a fault doesn’t necessarily mean one describes a wine only in terms of faults.

I honestly cannot think of anything that would create a wider gulf between a wine professional and 99% of consumers than using the technological terms listed. Perhaps it is useful when one MS talks to another, but I also have attended dinners where newly minted MSs have absolutely bombed at communicating anything meaningful to the audience because all they could speak was “Somm-ese.”

Wine is an emotional, visceral thing. It’s messy and frankly, full of poetry. Metaphors make very little “objective” sense, but I have found when communicating with pros and amateurs alike, the right metaphor reveals and connects an understanding that all these tech terms miss entirely.

I have little interest in someone who wants to talk about, say, 1962 La Romanée by invoking Rotundone and 4-ethylphenol. It sounds like the pinnacle of missing the point, at least to me.

This is hilarious. Unfortunately, I have had wines that smell like that. Of course, if I’m really getting sour beer, I have to think there’s some lactobacillus and/or pediococcus involved, and I don’t know how to differentiate those two.

Thanks for the nice words on the site. Even though there are close to 11,000 tasting notes available, as a tip, if you’re curious about anything Bordeaux, you will also find a lot of, hopefully useful information on a myriad of Bordeaux topics.

I also really like the objectivity and precision of terms like “IBMP.” There’s something awesome about being able to read about a wine and recognize its components the first time you taste it.

If that tells you what you want to know about a wine, great. For me, a wine is not its components, it’s the sum of the blend. It’s the texture of the wine on your palate, the length, sense of purity and style that explains what a wine has to offer. But that’s just me.

For me the key to connecting description to experience and memory is having good descriptors. If you say a wine is “spicy”, that can mean terpenes in the case of gewurz, saffron/ginger botrytis, rotundone, low levels VA or Brett. Isn’t it better to be specific?

Not for me. Terpines does not mean spice in my world. Spicy means exactly what it says, related to spice, from pepper, 5 spice, Asian spice etc. Again, for me, I like simplicity in wine descriptors. The flowery stuff does not work for me and neither does an emotional out pouring. Some wines clearly allow me to experience an emotion response, ranging from mind blowing, to boredom. I hope my tasting notes help a reader understand why I had a reaction to the wine. It might not always work, but that is my goal…

All very good but nothing to do with the wines quality

I know what you mean! I’ve been noting these wines as explicitly “lambic” or “bacterial” without really having a good idea of probable causes. I think my note of “lambic” now means more bacterial, whereas it used to mean something a bit more in the Brett camp. The 2001 Bartlett Pear Reserve we had in Orono leaps to mind. More recently I found some “natural wines” and odd varietals to have distinctly odd lambic character:

2013 Arnot-Roberts Ribolla-Gialla
2012 Mathiasson Ribolla-Gialla
2013 Donkey & Goat Sluice Box (a “natural” wine)
2012 Calder Charbono

Side note, I’ve also been using “bacterial” to describe excessively fecal aromas (barnyard) that aren’t, to my knowledge, associated with Brett (e.g. the '01 Cos).

Are there any good resources on bacterial flavors in wine? (faults or stylistic descriptors)

I haven’t found any. I’m going to do some research and maybe ask someone who definitely knows. Maybe some winemakers here will weigh in.

No but that’s a different issue. You can describe a wine that tastes like soap and rubber, but if you like that mix, you might think it’s a high-quality wine. The “quality” of a wine is pretty subjective unless you establish the standard against which you’re judging up front. Some people like things that others consider faults.

Also, I agree that wine is visceral and to some degree emotional, but the problem is that most people just aren’t very good writers. It’s a skill that takes work to develop and the simple fact that someone has a blog or got hired to produce copy doesn’t mean they’ve developed any particular skill. OTOH, if people can learn specific terms, that might provide some discipline and might even make the wanna-be poets better at producing the stuff they like to produce.

Rajiv, thank you for posting this. After reading over posts following my earlier one, I realize I was a bit too dismissive

It is an interesting topic and worthy of study and discussion by wine professionals and sophisticated consumers. On a wider scale, it is one that people should think about when tasting wine, and writing or reading tasting notes. My biggest complaint about tasting notes is not emotional excess (although I do dislike it), but excessive numbers of descriptors for flavors and aromas. It suggests a poor marksman grabbing the shotgun in the hope of hitting something. Far better and more helpful in my view to note the one of two most prominent aromas and flavors.

I happen to disagree with using the terms you provide in a tasting note for a broad audience without identifying the aroma or flavor you are attributing to a compound or process. Among other reasons, identifying a characteristic like manure tells the audience more than simply identifying the multiple compounds that might be responsible. Also, while different people have different sensitivities to these compounds making the taster’s experience of them subjective, my experience from many years of disciplined tastings and note comparisons with fellow students is that there is great deal of common perception. I also think quite a few of these technical descriptors are faults when present, at least at some level, which takes me back to the point of the preceding sentences. This thread reminded me of the Tom Stevenson piece on aromas and flavors (available at http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom/taste.htm) which I recommend to those who are interested in understanding why they finding non-wine characteristics (pleasant or nasty) in their glass.