A quick response to the OP: I completely agree with the point you are making, Alan. (or, “know the preferences of, and usual descriptors used by, the person writing the TN.”) Thank you for posting. ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
Brian - A TN that can’t communicate what the wine tasted like is useless. A TN that does so is useful to other people only to the degree that the perceptions are shared. The utility of a TN is in in the implication that if I tasted that same wine I’d get close to the same perceptions. If that’s not true, notes are useless - they’re s description of an experience and the intent isn’t merely to say “this is what I tasted” but to say “and this is the way the wine is”. That is, if another person tasted it, they’d taste the same things with in reasonable limits. That is, in fact, the entire reason for the existence of critical TNs - they’re buying guides.
There’s going to be some variance between how people write a TN, but the differnce should be one of flavor descriptors. There is no way that Alan and Laube tasted the same wine - either the wine was showing differently for each, one of them expressed their perceptions poorly or one of them has very different sensory perceptions from the other.
It is so important to really have a feel for who wrote the tasting note. Otherwise, it is worthless to me. Giving the writer the benefit of the doubt about writing skills and tasting ability, if I don’t know their palate, what use is the note. I need context.
I agree tasting is so important. I wish more retailers understood this. My local grocer, is always trying to push some “great” wine. I am constantly saying “pop a cork”. If its that good, I will buy a few, but I am buying zero from him without trying. Still waiting for that first cork to pop. The better retailers have regular tastings of bottles at varying price points.
Well, yes and no.
Through scientific inquiry we do have a good idea of what causes certain aromas/flavors–for instance, grapefruit or bell pepper or skunk-- to occur in wine. We can anlyze for these compounds, and we know through sensory testing what thresholds are for the average taster.
I agree, but who determines if the tasting note is “communicating what the wine tasted like”? I’ve asked this question repeatedly, and you continue to side-step it. Rick, when you read a TN, how do you determine if that TN is “communicating what the wine tastes like”?
A TN that does so is useful to other people only to the degree that the perceptions are shared. The utility of a TN is in in the implication that if I tasted that same wine I’d get close to the same perceptions. If that’s not true, notes are useless …
I disagree. If I know the person who wrote a TN says the wine had a blackberry flavor (for example), and I always perceive their “blackberry” as loganberry, then their TN is helpful to me – and neither one of us is right or wrong, we just perceive the same flavor differently – I don’t see anything wrong with that – and you apparently do, even though you have not yet admitted it. Additionally, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that their TN is not communicating what the wine tastes like, because their TN is communicating what the wine tasted like to them.
I was in a tasting room and the person pouring kept citing scores to another customer not with my group. Paraphrasing my overheard conversation: TR person, " Tanzer gave this a 92." Guest, “Who’s Tanzer?” TR person, “Well, everyone knows who Tanzer is and besides a 92 is great.” Guest, “A 92 might be great but this wine is not. Say hello to Tanzer next time you see him.” He then proceeded to set down his glass and walk out.
Classic!!!
(see sig)
I had this wine at an ACME tasting and overall I liked it. I am not surprised that Laube really liked it. It is not your typical Stags Leap Cab. Personally, I remember the bottle was super-heavy.
I agree with Rick. I am frustrated by those who admonish us to taste before we buy. I buy 99% of my wine over the internet or via email. On those rare occasions when I venture into a wine store, they never seem to be pouring a wine in which I would be interested. And yes, I end up with a few clunkers, but that is the opportunity cost of spending more time on work and family.
As I reread this, I realize I should add that my frustration is with my perception that I do not have more time to spend tasting wine and not with those who offer the sound advice to taste before we buy. As a single dad I spend almost all of my time away from work with my kids. So it is with great envy that I read tasting notes (WB, eBob, CT) and I buy much of my wine based on these same notes as well as reviews by Mssrs Parker, Martin, Galloni, Meadows, and Tanzer.
Kent, I certainly didn’t mean my post to be an “admonishment” or criticism of anyone. Just a reminder that buying wine on spec is a crap shoot 
Unless you have developed a track record with a particular wine or producer, and know more or less what to expect. I’ve reached the point where I’m will to take a flier on a wine in the $20-30 range, but above that I’m basically not buying until I taste unless I have experience with it in previous vintages. Others probably have a different threshold for purchasing, I’ve been disappointed too many times by both Laube and Parker…
Alan,
You offered sound advice and my response was churlish, I apologize.
Kent, no apology necessary, believe me, I’m sympathetic to your plight.
There are techniques for qualifying and correlating an aroma with its molecule. GC-olfactometry has been a key tool for several decades. But your basic point is valid, since different people smelling the same olfactants, such as in a wine, will have widely variable aroma impressions due to differences in detection thresholds, recognition thresholds, and aroma-identification memories. But there are specific aromas associated with specific molecules in a wine, and these have been worked out for hundreds of volatiles in wine. Evaluation of the Key Odorants of Foods by Dilution Experiments, Aroma Models and Omission | Chemical Senses | Oxford Academic
You do realize that Rick’s “basic point” is that some of those people are wrong, whereas others are right, don’t you?
Brian, when it comes to describing a wine, you don’t think there’s a point where a note becomes wrong? What if someone describes a white wine as rose? That’s still a legit description?
That’s an objective characteristic of the wine. I am speaking about subjective characteristics of the wine. If one taster describes a wine as having a “blackberry” flavor, and another says the wine has a “plum and raspberry” flavor, I don’t necessarily believe that at least one of those tasters is “wrong” – it is on this point where Rick (and perhaps you) and I disagree.
Since we can measure and quantify aromas, I consider them objective. If someone smells a vanilla bean and says almond, I consider that incorrect.
and I have no argument or disagreement with that (although I think we do place very different values of importance on it). If you read through Rick’s posts, his idea of an “accurate” tasting note is one that “accurately describes the perceptions of the taster” – see below:
Rick’s quote:
I disagree that there is a scientific test (or set of tests) to ascribe specific flavors and scents to specific chemicals. It certainly could, but I don’t think such a think exists at this point. More accurately, I don’t think we have a way to map, say, the taste of a hint of graphite to a specific compound or set of compounds. Put simply, I don’t believe Jeb’s assertion of such a scientific analysis, so your supposition about my meaning is incorrect. Matching a (nonexistent) analysis isn’t the point .
You’re talking about right and wrong. Those are the incorrect terms to use. What I’m looking for is an accurate representation of the wine as the taster perceived it.
this is pulled from one of Rick’s posts above. He clearly is not in your camp of “we can measure and quantify aromas,” or at least so he expressly says in (1), above. Rick himself, in (2), above, says, “What I’m looking for is an accurate representation of the wine as the taster perceived it.” This is talking about the subjective, not the objective. I have repeatedly asked Rick to tell us who determines if a TN is “an accurate representation of the wine as the taster perceived it,” but he has continually avoided answering this question. Based on his (1) paragraph, above, it is reasonable to conclude that his answer to my question would differ from yours (i.e.: a scientific analysis).
I do, indeed. That’s why mixing science into real-life is so interesting. You can argue nearly any viewpoint and not necessdarily be incorrect from some perspective. Now, whether the perspective is useful or not is yet a different issue…For example, aroma molecules. Take a pure aroma molecule by itself and you always have the same smell. Trained smellers will always identify it as the same aroma. But stick a bunch of different molecules into a mixture, say wine, and lots of different answers appear from untrained smellers. Sometimes from the trained ones, too…
There are too many nested quotes above to continue the quote chain. so…
Jeb,
You’re using the term scientific much differently than I would if that’s your meaning. To me a scientific test would be one that say “here are the measurements of various chemical compounds and we can say that those measurements mean that these characteristics are present in the wine.” We can probably do some of that, but we can’t characterize most of the complexities in a wine that way.
However I agree with you that if two people smell a vanilla bean and one says “almond” they’re incorrect. But the original posts aren’t that at all. It’s rather that one is saying “this vanila bean has a ton of complex flavors and really is a wonderful vanilla bean” while the other person is saying “this vanilla bean offers simple vanilla flavors with little complexity.” Neither of those are wrong or right - however, they DO imply that there’s some variation in either the beans, the tasters’ palates or the conditions under which they were tasting. To stretch the analogy further, it’s as if someone took one vanilla bean, sectioned it and have each half to two tasters and got that result. After all, two bottles of wine should be substantially the same - that’s an assumption we operate under though we realize bottles vary due to cork, storage and temperature.
What I’m saying is pretty basic logic and once again people are getting wrapped up in stuff that’s not relevant and it’s simply this - if two people taste the same exact wine they will perceive it very much the same presuming neither has significant physiological differences from the norm and that the tasting conditions are close.
If you read the notes in the original post you’ll notice that Alan and Laube describe the same wine very differently. Simple logic tells you that either:
- One of the tasters has very different perceptual capabilities than the other
or - The tasting environment is different enough to affect their perceptions
or - The two bottles of the same wine actually taste different.
or some combination of those factors.
So, sorry, Brian, but I’m not saying one is wrong and the other right, I’m saying that one (or more) of the above conditions exists for those two notes to exist. You cannot logically assert that the tasters have similar perceptual ability, that the wine was exactly the same and that the conditions were neutral… but that the notes could differ that much. in simpler terms, it’s that for the notes to be so different, there must be a cause.
Of course, there’s a limitation in that we’re relying on the notes - if the descriptions were close, I’d chalk it up to that. But Laube lauds the wine as complex, Alan damns it as not complex. They’re both experienced tasters, so I’m assuming that neither is misusing the term and you cannot get there unless one or more of the above three factors is true - it’s simply not possible.
Now, the question that Brian categorizes as right and wrong and the reason I’d care about this issue at all - if the notes are very different which wine will i get when i buy a bottle? The utility of notes to the reader is to get an idea of what the wine will be like if they buy a bottle and open it. It’s not right vs wrong but which note represents the wine I’ll get if I go buy a bottle? There are, again, three possibilities:
First, that Laube’s note more accurately reflects what i’d taste if I bought some random bottle of this wine.
Second, that Alan’s does.
Third, that neither do - that they happened to have outlying bottles and the truth is somewhere else.
Underlying all of this are the twin assumptions that the wine we buy will be very similar to the one written about and that the writer substantially shares our tasting ability. It’s really this last point that people seem to have an issue with, but is it really that controversial? Stipulate that we’re talking about a group of people who don’t smoke, who don’t have colds, allergies etc and who are in an environment that’s not filled with its own aromas (smoke, cologne, flowers, etc). Open a bottle and pour a glass for each of these people - wouldn’t you expect that they’ll perceive pretty much the same things? I would. I’d be shocked if one person said 'this is a very complex wine with these aromas and flavors…" and someone else said "this is a simple wine with little complexity and a simple flavor of… ".
Brian - before you reply, a word. Form your own thoughts. I’m not interested in hearing what you think I mean or having you grab a phrase out of a several paragraph post to try to twist it around. This is very basic logic - if you see an error, fine, but put forth YOUR opinion, not what you think mine is.