Help me understand primary, secondary, tertiary characteristics

[Jim_Stewart]

Primary - all the characteristics coming from the vineyard and grape (fruit, floral, herbaceous)
Secondary - all the characteristics coming from the wine making process (oak, malo, lees contact, etc)
Tertiary - all the characteristics coming from maturation. (graphite, mushroom, forest floor)

This is the official terminology I’ve seen taught in many places, including the places I’ve studied wine.

My understanding is similar to Hanks, though I’m not sure floral/herbaceous notes are from the vineyard. I’d think of those as secondary, as I believe they wouldn’t show up until after fermentation. To that end I’d expand secondary to include byproducts of fermentation.

Herbaceous notes are often (but not always) from the vineyard, since they usually come from pyrazines, which are grape compounds that survive the fermentation process pretty much unchanged. For example methoxypyrazines found in, for example, Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon and Carmenère grapes, impart that herbaceous bell pepper character. However, new American oak can impart a herbaceous note of dill or mint, which then is a secondary characteristic.

Floral aromas are usually primary (tones of different compounds here) and for example a classic Moscato wine is supposed to be nothing but primary fruit, without ANY tertiary characteristics and all the secondary characteristics downplayed as much as possible (using neutral yeasts, minimizing lees contact, no oak etc.) . It really tastes like unfermented grape must (which is pretty much as primary as possible). However, many red wines develop perfumed floral characteristics only with age and these are tertiary characteristics.

However, when writing tasting notes, terms “primary”, “secondary” and “tertiary” can be used more liberally, which can add to confusion - although I’ve seen very few people use “secondary” constantly. Normally one sees just “primary” to describe wine that feels still very grapey and all about explosive, youthful fruit (although, in reality, many of those aromas are technically secondary, since they are fermentation byproducts, like fruity esters) and “tertiary” to describe wine that has lost most or all of its primary fruit, retaining mainly secondary and tertiary aromatics.

Otto, you’ve very helpfully fleshed out the “definitions” for me. By giving practical examples of grapes/wines along with referencing some of the chemical compounds responsible for tastes/aromas, you may have managed to dent my dense brain.
Cheers,
-Jim

[Jim_Stewart]

Hank, so your are saying ALL wines have both primary and secondary characteristics? Can’t some of those examples you cite of so-called tertiary characteristics sometimes be present in a wine almost from the beginning without much maturation?

No.

There are some aromas and flavors that ONLY occur with aging. Not with aeration, not with fresh fruit. And not all wines express all three categories. Tertiary characteristics come at the expense of the primary characteristics. But most wines don’t really age. They just turn into crap.

There’s no legal definition, but according to Peynaud, secondary characteristics come from fermentation, which requires yeast and development of new compounds that are not present in the berries themselves, in other words, not from the berries directly. And tertiary aromas come from age, so you’ll never have htose aromas with fresh grape juice.

But that’s just a handy distinction, not a legal or scientific one. And there’s no need to write about them in tasting notes, or worry about what they may mean if you read tasting notes, which are more or less useless anyway.

Greg, A blend of the theoretical with the “straight dope”. I hear you. Cheers. -Jim

[Howard_Cooper]

Hank, so your are saying ALL wines have both primary and secondary characteristics? Can’t some of those examples you cite of so-called tertiary characteristics sometimes be present in a wine almost from the beginning without much maturation?

Most wines do not develop positive tertiary characteristics (and I agree with Hank’s definition). They lose their fruit, fall apart and die. Most wines should be drunk early for their fruit. It is only the types of wines that are prized by many people on this board that are made to age and develop.

[Otto_Forsberg]

Otto, you’ve very helpfully fleshed out the “definitions” for me. By giving practical examples of grapes/wines along with referencing some of the chemical compounds responsible for tastes/aromas, you may have managed to dent my dense brain.
Cheers,
-Jim

I hope you can manage with this kind of cerebral damage and I will not be charged of aggravated informational assault.

Cheers!

[Howard_Cooper]

Thanks. This is somewhat helpful. Maybe as Chris suggests there is no real answer and these are terms that, despite the “formal definitions”, are not understood the same way by everybody who uses the terms?
Let me ask the question differently. In an Oregon Pinot Noir and a French Chablis, what would be some tastes /aromas that YOU consider primary, secondary or tertiary? Could I take two vintages of the same wine (one young one mature) and get a sense of what primary/secondary tastes like in comparison to tertiary? Can YOU suggest two available vintages of a specific wine that would illustrate this. Do I overcomplicate? oversimplify? Thanks.

I cannot comment on Oregon Pinot Noir, as I do not drink enough of them to know which ones develop. If I had to pick one, I would try Domaine Drouhin, but I have only had one wine of theirs with any age on it. French Chablis is a great example, although it is complicated now (as is the case for virtually all white Burgundies) by premox making it dangerous to age white Burgundies. If you want to try with Chablis, I would suggest premier crus (should age a bit faster than grand crus) and for a good producer who is reasonably priced try Christian Moreau. I would try three wines - a 2017 or other very young wine, a 2014 (a five year old wine) and a 2010 to get one that is more mature.

I highly recommend trying a similar experiment with Bordeaux and Burgundy. There, try a wine that is young, then one that is 5-10 years old and finally one that is 10-15 years old. You don’t need to buy really expensive wines to try this. [The first time I tried something like this was the late 1980s when a group tasted together a 1978, 1982 and 1986 Chateau Potensac.] A suggestion would be Chateau Cantemerle or Chateau Sociando Mallet in Bordeaux (although I would think that Potensac would still work) and in Burgundy Joseph Drouhin or Hudelot-Noellat (the one complication at Hudelot-Noellat is that the wines from 2008 on were made by a new generation in the family and are different and probably better than the ones before it). Try villages level wines or lesser premier crus in Burgundy to keep the price down somewhat.

[John_Morris]

In wine talk, primary is pretty much a negative term, almost the opposite of complex. Simple, un-evolved. And we like our wine evolved and complex.

I don’t agree with that characterization. I don’t think there’s any negative connotation to “primary.”

Personally, I love the primary flavors of wines like zinfandel and Beaujolais and dolcetto. I prefer to drink those wines young, even though they can evolve some tertiary elements with time.

[Jim_Stewart]

Thanks. This is somewhat helpful. Maybe as Chris suggests there is no real answer and these are terms that, despite the “formal definitions”, are not understood the same way by everybody who uses the terms?
Let me ask the question differently. In an Oregon Pinot Noir and a French Chablis, what would be some tastes /aromas that YOU consider primary, secondary or tertiary? Could I take two vintages of the same wine (one young one mature) and get a sense of what primary/secondary tastes like in comparison to tertiary? Can YOU suggest two available vintages of a specific wine that would illustrate this. Do I overcomplicate? oversimplify? Thanks.

I cannot comment on Oregon Pinot Noir, as I do not drink enough of them to know which ones develop. If I had to pick one, I would try Domaine Drouhin, but I have only had one wine of theirs with any age on it. French Chablis is a great example, although it is complicated now (as is the case for virtually all white Burgundies) by premox making it dangerous to age white Burgundies. If you want to try with Chablis, I would suggest premier crus (should age a bit faster than grand crus) and for a good producer who is reasonably priced try Christian Moreau. I would try three wines - a 2017 or other very young wine, a 2014 (a five year old wine) and a 2010 to get one that is more mature.

I highly recommend trying a similar experiment with Bordeaux and Burgundy. There, try a wine that is young, then one that is 5-10 years old and finally one that is 10-15 years old. You don’t need to buy really expensive wines to try this. [The first time I tried something like this was the late 1980s when a group tasted together a 1978, 1982 and 1986 Chateau Potensac.] A suggestion would be Chateau Cantemerle or Chateau Sociando Mallet in Bordeaux (although I would think that Potensac would still work) and in Burgundy Joseph Drouhin or Hudelot-Noellat (the one complication at Hudelot-Noellat is that the wines from 2008 on were made by a new generation in the family and are different and probably better than the ones before it). Try villages level wines or lesser premier crus in Burgundy to keep the price down somewhat.

Excellent suggestions for me! Thanks, Howard. Cheers -Jim

[John_Morris]

I see this terminology a lot. I have only a very basic idea of what is being talked about. I am looking to go beyond this basic understanding to being able to recognize the characteristic(s) as they present themselves in a wine. I have a perhaps naive idea that a tasting of a few wines could be structured to illustrate the concept. Not sure how to proceed. Any suggestions/advice would be welcome.

As Howard said, the best way to understand this is to buy two vintages of the same wine – one quite young and one with significant age (say 20 years) and try them side by side. Bordeaux is probably the easiest type to acquire with age. And you don’t have to buy Mouton. Try to find a good cru bourgeois with 20 years, and it will likely have more tertiary elements than a first growth, whose structure delays evolution. I agree that Potensac would be a good choice. (Sociando Mallet matures slowly, so I wouldn’t try that.)

You could probably experience it with a 15-year-old Chateauneuf de Pape, too, as those tend to evolve fairly quickly.

In a white, you can see the difference pretty clearly in German riesling. See if you can find a good Spatlese from 1994 to 2002 and match it with a current release.

Very few of us drink wines with a lot of tertiary development on a regular basis, because it takes a long time. In most cases, the evolution of the wines we drink – even at, say, 10 years – consists mainly of tannins softening and some of the primary flavors fading a bit, not of a lot of new tertiary aromas and tastes. (I’m leaving out “secondary” because if that’s used in the technical sense of byproducts of fermentation, and not to elements that derive from age, it’s kind of an academic concept. A lot of the time, though, people use it to mean the products of age.)

[Jim_Stewart]

Thank you too, John. Very useful. The “tasting” is what I vaguely had in mind and is what I will do. Cheers -Jim

[Hank_Victor]

Thank you too, John. Very useful. The “tasting” is what I vaguely had in mind and is what I will do. Cheers -Jim

Hey Jim,

On the second page of the link I posted below you can some descriptors fleshed out and categorized by primary, secondary, tertiary. While obviously not a complete list it is a solid starting point.

https://www.wsetglobal.com/media/7071/wset_l4wines_sat_en_may2019.pdf

[Mark_Y]

Hmm…to me, more ‘development’ is seen in secondary than just oak, malo, lees, etc - to me, secondary is when the oak starts to integrate (for example) but the fruit is still bright.

I apply those terms in the same way Chris just described.

Primary - young fresh fruit
Secondary - integration has happened (tannins. Oak. Fruit)
Tiertiary - full integration. Old funky sh!t happening.

That would be a second/third stage of developement rather than a secondary/tertiary characteristic.

Ok but in a TN are people not talking about stages of development? If I say I get red fruit, earth and hints of oak. But with 12 years this wine is definitely showing secondary characteristics.

Do u interpret that as definitely has wine making flavors. Or it’s secondary stage of development?
I think it’s pretty self explanatory right?

[Jim_Stewart]

Thank you too, John. Very useful. The “tasting” is what I vaguely had in mind and is what I will do. Cheers -Jim

Hey Jim,

On the second page of the link I posted below you can some descriptors fleshed out and categorized by primary, secondary, tertiary. While obviously not a complete list it is a solid starting point.

https://www.wsetglobal.com/media/7071/wset_l4wines_sat_en_may2019.pdf

Hank, that will be very useful. I just printed it out to have on hand. Thanks!
Cheers-Jim

[larry_schaffer]

I think one of the biggest challenges here is agreeing that we are experiencing the same flavors/aromas and agreeing what we are experiencing. In addition, in looking at that WSET list of aromas, I think there is room for ‘disagreement’ on some of these - for instance, I tend to get cinnamon elements in some white wines like roussanne very early on, and not from tertiary development. And with the use of stems, one might get all kinds of different aromas that might be considered ‘secondary’ or ‘tertiary’ but that show up early and remain with the wine.

I like the idea of trying 2 wines from the same producer/region 10-15 years apart - but even that is prone to lead to ‘challenges’ due to potential changes in winemaking over time, to the possibility of ‘bottle variation’, etc . . .

Fun discussion indeed.

[Hank_Victor]

I think one of the biggest challenges here is agreeing that we are experiencing the same flavors/aromas and agreeing what we are experiencing. In addition, in looking at that WSET list of aromas, I think there is room for ‘disagreement’ on some of these - for instance, I tend to get cinnamon elements in some white wines like roussanne very early on, and not from tertiary development. And with the use of stems, one might get all kinds of different aromas that might be considered ‘secondary’ or ‘tertiary’ but that show up early and remain with the wine.

I like the idea of trying 2 wines from the same producer/region 10-15 years apart - but even that is prone to lead to ‘challenges’ due to potential changes in winemaking over time, to the possibility of ‘bottle variation’, etc . . .

Fun discussion indeed.

Yeah its tricky and up to personal interpretation.
For you example of cinnamon you find it both in the tertiary (white) row as well as the spice row in primary. You can deduce if it is primary or tertiary when you consider if any other signs of age development in the wine are present.

[Jim_Stewart]

I did a little wine availability searching and am thinking of doing a 2 bottle “experiment” with Sociando-Mallet (thanks Howard) comparing a 2004 with a 2016.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Sociando is a great test since back vintages are easy to find, plus it is not expensive. And of course, it rocks.

I’d rather see you do:

2014
2001 or 2000
1995 or 1996

Three side by side would be killer. And maybe even toss in an 86.

1990 is smokin.

[Howard_Cooper]

I see this terminology a lot. I have only a very basic idea of what is being talked about. I am looking to go beyond this basic understanding to being able to recognize the characteristic(s) as they present themselves in a wine. I have a perhaps naive idea that a tasting of a few wines could be structured to illustrate the concept. Not sure how to proceed. Any suggestions/advice would be welcome.

As Howard said, the best way to understand this is to buy two vintages of the same wine – one quite young and one with significant age (say 20 years) and try them side by side. Bordeaux is probably the easiest type to acquire with age. And you don’t have to buy Mouton. Try to find a good cru bourgeois with 20 years, and it will likely have more tertiary elements than a first growth, whose structure delays evolution. I agree that Potensac would be a good choice. (Sociando Mallet matures slowly, so I wouldn’t try that.)

You could probably experience it with a 15-year-old Chateauneuf de Pape, too, as those tend to evolve fairly quickly.

In a white, you can see the difference pretty clearly in German riesling. See if you can find a good Spatlese from 1994 to 2002 and match it with a current release.

Very few of us drink wines with a lot of tertiary development on a regular basis, because it takes a long time. In most cases, the evolution of the wines we drink – even at, say, 10 years – consists mainly of tannins softening and some of the primary flavors fading a bit, not of a lot of new tertiary aromas and tastes. (I’m leaving out “secondary” because if that’s used in the technical sense of byproducts of fermentation, and not to elements that derive from age, it’s kind of an academic concept. A lot of the time, though, people use it to mean the products of age.)

German wines are a great choice also. My issue with German wines is that after 45 years or more of drinking them I still cannot decide whether I like them better when they are young and full of fruit or when they are older and have developed much more complexity but have lost some of the vibrancy of youth. The best I have come up with is to drink some each way. A 2015 Saarburger Rausch Kabinett from Zilliken that I had recently was beyond fabulous.

[Howard_Cooper]

I did a little wine availability searching and am thinking of doing a 2 bottle “experiment” with Sociando-Mallet (thanks Howard) comparing a 2004 with a 2016.

Great. But be aware that 2016 is a better vintage than 2004 (a good not great vintage) so do not draw too many conclusions from this one tasting. Excellent way to start but treat it as step one in a life-long study. As they often say, the journey is more important than the destination.

[Howard_Cooper]

Sociando is a great test since back vintages are easy to find, plus it is not expensive. And of course, it rocks.

I’d rather see you do:

2014
2001 or 2000
1995 or 1996

Three side by side would be killer. And maybe even toss in an 86.

1990 is smokin.

This is why some of the interesting tastings I have gone to are verticals.

And you forgot to mention that the 82 also is (was?) quite good.

[Marcu_Stanley]

I see this terminology a lot. I have only a very basic idea of what is being talked about. I am looking to go beyond this basic understanding to being able to recognize the characteristic(s) as they present themselves in a wine. I have a perhaps naive idea that a tasting of a few wines could be structured to illustrate the concept. Not sure how to proceed. Any suggestions/advice would be welcome.

I don’t think there is any very specific answer.

I think of it as though the primary flavors are the ones most prominent in a wine’s youth - mostly the fruit and oak.

The secondary flavors are what we think of as the complexity from when wines get into their maturity, things like leather, spice, graphite, mineral, herbs, pine forest, orange peel, tobacco, etc. Those may well be noticeable in a good quality young wine too, or some portion of them, but they achieve more prominence and more balance with the fruit and overall experience as the wine gets into its peak window.

Tertiary flavors are the additional flavors that become more prominent when a very good and ageworthy wine reaches the later part of its maturity, things maybe like mushroom, tea, autumn leaves, dried flowers. Older type flavors yet which are still interesting and pleasant. This is probably not a level you encounter very often, unless you’re Francois Audouze or something.

That’s totally just how I think of it, and it may or may not be right or what other people mean by those terms.

This is how I think of it, that wine starts with primary characteristics then ages into secondary and finally tertiary characteristics.

I definitely don’t think of the definition as being that secondary characteristics are the most wine-making related. Those characteristics (e.g. oak) are most prominent when the wine is young!