CT notes with the descriptor "legs"

I just realized that when I’m skimming notes and I run across any mention of a wine’s “legs”, I immediately quit reading and move on, completely dismissing the note and the contributor.

Chris
It has some value in demonstrating viscosity (and often related alc%), though perhaps only in (very) sweet wines would I take notice. Is your complaint is about the type of person who has got it into their head that noticeable legs = big wine = good wine?
regards
Ian

It’s both a commentary on just what you said, and an observation on my closed mindedness/dismissiveness.

But I guess I posted as an conversation starter about wine and “legs”. How did the idea come about that it was a good thing at all? Does anyone remember a wine world so filled with thin, watery wines that “legs” could be an indicator of quality?

I kinda see where Chris is coming from. Most of the time when someone holds up a glass and looks at the “legs” of the wine and talks about it to me, I feel like they really don’t know what they are talking about as they think it’s an actual important component to the wine. I’ve had people tell me the “longer the legs” the “better the wine”

Now if someone said “man look at that thickness, that must have a lot of alcohol/glycerin”, that’d be a different story.

Thread drift - but reminds me of the time at a popular Napa winery. We did a food and wine pairing and this family with an obviously underage kid was drinking and commenting how incredible the wines legs were. Noting it is a quality she looks for, etc. I bit my tongue until the guide asked what legs showed. I think I said basically “nothing but sugar or alcohol” and that shut her up some. But then the food pairing comes out. She asks for the chef - which I was like ok - she was going to compliment him. Then asks a bunch of questions and starts to give him tips and asks if he thought about cooking the item this way and pairing it with this, etc. I went to say something and my wife punched my leg. So whenever I hear “legs” - this nonsense is all I think about.

Back to your regularly scheduled discussions…

Guess you don’t read Parker’s notes.

My recollection is that “legs” relate to alcohol. Not viscosity, glycerine, fullness, etc. And certainly not to “quality” or “class.” I’m not surprised that Parker subjectively associated higher alcohol wines with some of those terms, but it’s unfortunately perpetuated some misinformation.

And yes, you are being somewhat closed minded. A visual cue about alcohol level is not the worst wine descriptor I’ve come across!

Regards,
Peter

Cool.

I suppose a few of us who drank European wine in the 1980s will remember with the odd wince, some very lean (ok hideously unripe) wines. I can’t recall looking for legs at the time, but barring extensive chaptalisation, I’d be surprised if you could see them. I can certainly remember the family habit when growing up, of a spoonful of sugar in the (cheap) white wine.

regards
Ian

Good topic, though maybe for a different reason. “Legs” (or “tears”) are pretty much dependent only on alcohol concentration. Other factors may make them more or less apparent (sugar content which can change viscosity, color which can allow them to show more clearly, etc.), but legs are an indicator of alcohol. I actually use them to help assess a wine’s ABV. If you really want to see the legs, put the glass under a decent lamp, and look at the shadow cast by the tears as they run down the wall of the glass.

There is a fantastic old “Amateur Scientist” article in Scientific American, from 1983. Unfortunately, you have to be registered to get it, but you can buy just the single article. It’s worth $8 for anyone really interested (it’s not just wine, talks about the theory, and other fascinating examples, plus the ads from 1983 are worth at least $4)

Kind of like tasting notes that say “it had a 45-second finish.” I see Parker is still indulging in that BS.

From what I’ve read ‘viscosity’ of the liquid is what produces the ‘legs’ that show in higher alcohol wines. Viscosity is a term that describes the internal friction of a liquid, with high alcohol content making the residue coagulate in streams on the glass. But it wouldn’t surprise me if there are other interpretations.

Interesting. When I see “legs” in a tasting note, I assume that the note writer has been writing tasting notes for 25+ years. Same with the “x-second finish” note. What I appreciate about these types of notes is that the taster usually evaluates a fairly standard set of attributes – I’m 33, so I assume without first-hand knowledge this was some sort of standardized list in the 80s – that are objectively observable (at least theoretically), like color, weight, relative acidity, etc. I happen to enjoy notes like that and find that they often tell me more about a wine than more modern notes do.

Of course, now we “know” a lot more about wine and regard evaluations of the “legs” as silly. So we instead litter our tasting notes with descriptors like “profound,” “ethereal,” and “lightly stewed huckleberries.” We’ve advanced so much.

Legs might be objectively measurable, I guess, and it at least relates directly to an objective element.

Length of finish is utterly subjective. It’s a function of your saliva and what you’ve drunk or eaten before, most significantly. If you’ve been drinking a lot of tannic wines, after a while all the finishes will become very loooooong because all the proteins in your saliva have been used up reacting with the earlier tannins. That’s when your mouth feels chalky.

I’m pretty sure this silliness was a Parker invention. (Does he get out a stopwatch???) I don’t think I’ve ever seen any other wine writer use it. Utterly, utterly bogus.

Ah, tears of wine:

I wonder if legs were more relevant in an earlier age when ripeness was more iffy – when you’d prefer a 12% claret to one with 10.5%? Just speculation.

That sounds right, and I was probably falling prey to the numerical fallacy – probably no more objective than the scores. I still think “length” is at least in the same ballpark of ridiculousness as many flavor/aroma notes though.

I don’t like the legs descriptor either, but viscosity by sight is still part of the Master Sommelier’s tasting format.


Court of Master Sommeliers - Deductive Tasting Method
SIGHT
• Clarity
– Clear/ medium clear/slightly cloudy/cloudy • Brightness
– Dull/ hazy/bright/day bright/star bright/brilliant
• Color
– Reds: purple/ruby (red)/garnet/orange/brown
– Whites: clear/green/straw/yellow/gold/brown
• Concentration: low/medium/high
• Rim Variation: color of rim/edge
• Gas Evidence
• Sediment/Particles
• Viscosity: low/medium/high
NOSE
• Flaws
– Corkiness, H2S, volatile acidity, brett, oxidation, etc.
• Intensity: delicate/moderate/powerful
• Age assessment: youth vs. vinosity
• Fruit: primary and secondary
• Non-fruit aromas
– Flowers/spices/herbs/botrytis/other aromas
• Earthiness
– Mineral/chalk/stony/dust/mushroom/barnyard/ musty
• Wood
– Old vs. new – French vs. American – large vs.
barrique
PALATE
• Sweetness
– Bone dry/dry/off-dry/sweet/very sweet
• Body: light/med-/medium/med+/full
• Fruit: confirm nose
• Non-fruit flavors: confirm nose
• Earthiness: confirm nose
• Wood: confirm nose
• Tannin: low/med-/medium/med+/high
• Alcohol: low/med-/medium/med+/high
• Acidity: low/med-/medium/med+/high
• Finish: short/med-/medium/med+/long
• Complexity: low/med-/medium/med+/high
INITIAL CONCLUSION
• Old World/New World
• Climate: cool/moderate/warm
• Grape Variety/Blend
• Age Range
– 1-3 yrs./3-5 yrs./5-10 yrs./more than 10 yrs.
FINAL CONCLUSION
• Grape Variety/blend
• Country/Region/Appellation
• Quality level
• Vintage

My brother loves high abv red ‘table wines’ with residual sugar. LOVES them. Thinks nothing about ordering recioto styled/passito wines with his main course. He also believes all wine should be red. And he adheres to a ‘heart healthy’ diet after undergoing a 4-way coronary bypass before he was 50, so he eats only fish and chicken animal protein. ‘Legs’ are very important to him; it is the first thing he will comment about when looking at a glass of wine.

I don’t care what anyone says or thinks, when I see legs in a wine, it’s always a better wine; and not some cheap garbage. So for those of you that are like me, keep posting your notes. Only a few wine snobs will cause you emotional grief.

My general comments are not aimed at anyone on this thread.

I was recently at a custom crush facility which had a tasting room, and the lady there kept telling us to look at the legs on each glass. I thought it was fairly odd.

Jay, is it verboten to mention any terms of quality. Let’s say you have a wine that you find really quite special. Or really rather ordinary. What’s a guy to do… that would not be considered “litter” to you?