So all your TNs are just stats from lab analyses?
There is an element of creativity in all (wine) writing, as we try to convey sensations. Some do it better than others.
But I do think trying to convey the structural sensations is useful, so people have a sense of how the wine is built and how it is perceived. As opposed to lots of fruit/food sensation descriptors, which are even more ‘creative’.
At least not on my tasting notes, lol
Actually yes. Well not plush. But soft, easy , and my favourite, blousey.(favourite descriptor not favourite wines!)
We all use similes. My issue with crunchy is that I never use in connection with any fruits, and the flavours I associate with it - toast, biscuits, pork crackling etc are almost certainly not relevant to the wine in question.
Eat more tart apples
The point isn’t that the liquid in your glass is crunchy. It’s that the fruit flavors and acid remind you of fruit that has a crunch to it – almost or just barely ripe, firm, tart, tangy, fresh. Think of a tart early-ripeness peach, mango, blueberry, cherry, grape. As distinguished from a fully ripe version of those fruits that have become softer (and lost their crunch), or an overripe version of those that have become mushy.
Lots of wine descriptors which are useful don’t make literal “Drax the Destroyer” sense for describing a liquid beverage. Firm, dry, tired, flabby, full bodied, long, etc.
So very Bourdieusian!
Interesting to see people approaching things different ways. I don’t even take that next step to think about the fruit. I would use it to express how the acid structure presents itself.
I only take issue with the use of the term as it doesn’t help a casual reader. If folks with multiple years and decades of experience can’t conclude the same thing from the word “crunchy” it’s a useless term unless it is further qualified. While it is helpful to me, it would make me think less of the reviewer. The problem is the reviewers literally cover a zillion wines. No one can do that well, despite what Jeb Dunnuck says in interviews. And I say that as a paid subscriber who feels my palate is most closely aligned with him and his staff. I trust cellar tracker descriptions from real humans over a wine critic at this point. And a review from a berserker is like gold, so long as they don’t say crunchy on its own.
Do you think it’s any different with film critics, art critics, etc? The nature of trying to discuss sensory experiences with language. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. (And yes, doesn’t mean some folks spew more BS than others)
Of all the dumb things I read about wine, “crunchy fruit” isn’t even remotely on that list. But this is the internet so . . .
I actually see a lot of commonality in what most people are saying in this thread even if they might be expressing differently. It sounds like you really just don’t want to see the term in a note and are refusing to acknowledge that it has meaning for experienced tasters.
Which, you both distrust for the use of certain words while at the same time say “a review from a berserker is like gold”. I think any random person stumbling into this thread will have a much easier time coming to some understanding on ‘crunchy’ being used in reference to a wine than they could draw coherence from these statements.
Hi Chris,
Thread drift.
I think I may have mentioned it before, but I always think of Chablis when I read your surname.
kind regards
Jeremy
I could be wrong about the origins of the term, but it seemed to me crunchy was a nice way of selling a flavor some people might not want in their wine. So I have no problem with description, but if that description is intentionally misleading, it makes it being confusing more of a problem. And I see a lot of crunchy wines out there.
Loire whites with a bit of tartrate crystals are crunchy, I guess? 
No i’m acknowledging the exact opposite. It only means something to experienced tasters and therefore isn’t useful the larger public who relies on scores (way more so than those with experience)
I think this is the same misunderstanding. The vast majority of wine critic readers will probably only look at the number, but if they do look at the description…they probably aren’t going to google crunchy and find this wineberserker forum. If they do, color me surprised.
But do they really need to understand it? Does everyone know what violets smell like? Or sandalwood? Does everyone know what sappy means, in this context? I often use the phrase “watery through the midpalate,” which I believe most people here would agree is a very clear, very concrete, easily recognizable characteristic. But several beginners have asked me what it means.
I think it’s okay if tasting notes contain some curious words and phrases, and that notes can still communicate even if readers don’t find every word helpful. All hobbies and fields have jargon, and a degree of specialized language. Part of the learning process for newcomers is coming to recognize and understand the unfamiliar terms. I think this process can even be exciting - fwiw, in my watery-through-the-mid example above, those people to whom I explained it were really pleased to understand.
That is a fair breakdown. I guess I’ll just say a word that makes really no sense logically for wine, crunchy, is a little bit different than a tactile descriptor like watery through the mid-palate (which of course requires some know how and experience). If they just said, palate is like “crunchy red fruits”, I think that would be acceptable.
And we should all, of course, strive to make our tasting notes acceptable to Dave B (ADB). 
No kidding. Acceptable now that makes me chuckle.