Ah, yes. Maybe it’s even a better comparison then! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Austerity and elegance are very different things.
The various different definitions of austere include simple or unadorned. Those who use austere as a positive descriptor are likely thinking of this definition in describing a wine reflective of its terroir without any perceived embellishments.
But the definition of austere also encompasses stern, dour, grim and unemotional, so the word carries negative connotations for many. I know it does for me, and I consider it a negative when I see it.
It just goes to show that you can’t always understand a TN without understanding the taster.
I think of “austere” as a good thing.
I also tend to think of “reticent” as a good-ish thing.
To me, they mean structure predominates vs. overt fruit. I like to go and find the fruit rather than have it all thrown at me.
I think of those words as saying the flavors are present, just not in a slaternly way.
I think people also just have different palates. There often is a basic assumption that we all like fruit, and that’s just not always true.
I don’t mind a moderate amount of fruit, but I prefer both acidity and minerality to fruit. I prefer a wine with distinct tannin, and savory notes. This is just the type of wine I like(and I am a Muscadet fan).
Also, many of the very best wines I have ever consumed were older vintages of wines that were quite austere on release. I learned this lesson with a six pack of 95 Barbaresco. The first bottle was unquestionably “austere” and at the time I found it lacking. After 8-9 years it was elegant and nuanced in a way I don’t find riper vintages to evolve into(2000 Piedmont is a rather boring, simple, fruit soft vintage, IMHO. I definitely prefer vintages that were more austere on release).
2005 Oregon Pinot Noir is another good example of a vintage that was quite austere in it’s youth and has become a highlight for the decade in Oregon.
I’m not trying to disrespect fruit driven wines, and I definitely drink them from time to time, but wines that are more about stones, acid, electricity, and in the case of a producer like Coche Dury, just a presence of power and intensity more related to soil than alcohol and extraction techniques are my preference any day of the week.
How about restrained? A wine that has yet to reach a stage where it can show its potential.
Nice way of saying it!
I think among my friends, I like a more austere wine and most of them like more fruit in a red. Whites are another story and my wife likes an austere wine and I can appreciate more fruit in a Riesling. A crisp white is a winner all around. Marcus, I never hesitate to recommend one of yours whether red white or rosé.
This is a fabulous post, because it conveys very clearly a concept that is complex and hard to express. And Marcus, it also makes me want to taste your wines.
Marcus is ITB?
Or purple prose.
JD
My problem with this term is that I can’t help but think of the actual word austere and what it generally means (see below). Yes of course a word can have different meanings in different contexts, but, for me, when I see this word I struggle to perceive it as a positive attribute. This thread has been really helpful for me because I’m curious how people use this word and what they really mean. But I wish there was a different word for what Marcus and others describe.
Austere:
severe or strict in manner, attitude, or appearance.
“an austere man, with a rigidly puritanical outlook”
synonyms: severe, stern, strict, harsh, steely, flinty, dour, grim, cold, frosty, unemotional, unfriendly; formal, stiff, reserved, aloof, forbidding; grave, solemn, serious, unsmiling, unsympathetic, unforgiving; hard, unyielding, unbending, inflexible; informal, hard-boiled
If a wine like Coche Dury CC were to let out all of its $2000 worth of value in a single taste, it would be overwhelming to most tasters, so it’s best for wines like this to be somewhat restrained.
Maybe the problem boils down to tasting note terminology. A wine is not “austere” any more than it is “sexy,” “prodigious,” “exuberant,” “laser-like,” etc. These terms have known, common definitions, but not as applied to beverages. As the ever-expanding lexicon of tasting notes continues to use more adjectives that have nothing to do with wine, there’s a fair risk that nobody will apply them with the same meaning.
I’ll avoid turning this into yet another complaint session about ridiculous, pretentious tasting notes. But I will say that simple and straightforward is better, in my view. It is not unusual to read a three- or four-sentence tasting note that is full of colorful, ambiguous adjectives and never once describes the actual smell or taste of a wine. If there is utility in such a note, it’s completely lost on me.
Durstin thanks very much for the support! If you’re anywhere near us, give a shout.
I should have stated that I am ITB, and have the great fortune to produce wine in the Willamette Valley. My wines tend to the more linear and structured side of Willamette Valley wines but Mother Nature drives the bus and I just hop on for the ride.
Kevin, you make a great point. Notes would probably be more helpful if they were were more direct and less prone to hyperbole but for any of the truly great wines basic descriptors don’t set the wine apart from average wines. Also, in my opinion, with great wines there really is more than just the flavors. They somehow connect with us on a different level, bringing up memories and experiences that may not have had any real connection to basic flavors.
Last, I would be less than honest if I didn’t admit that after 14 years of writing tasting notes I stray from the basics because I am passionate about my wines and because I need to write something different than what I wrote the previous vintage.
Great thread!
I disagree completely with this. The term “austere” has been used as a wine descriptor forever, and has communicative value when used properly. One can argue that “sexy” or “prodigious” are vague hyperbole that lack specific meaning, but “austere” cannot be viewed that way.
Tasting notes that are the most useful to me are those that describe the wine’s shape, profile, and structure. Lists of flavors are much less useful and interesting, IMO. Obviously each person has to consider the TN writer, and decide if it is a reliable source or not. That is a different topic from the question of valid vocabulary.
Tasting notes are in fact subjective and personal, but if we eliminate all the ambiguous words from the tasting lexicon there will only be one tasting note for each and every wine: wet.
He makes the wines at Matello. I surprised people with the wonderful 2012 “Richard’s Cuvee” Chardonnay at my last bind testing where it was a general hit and prompted several “I didn’t know they were making wine this good in Oregon” comments.
I have been exchanging emails with a Mendocino producer about this very issue. I received a Carignan from said winemaker a few months ago, and I was disappointed with the wine. I honestly thought it was faulty. The stemmy, hollow midpalate, as well as the absence of any perceivable fruit was a miserable experience for me. Stems and acid.
Then, I received another Mendocino Carignan from a legendary Zinfandel winemaker’s side project. Same thing all over again! Stemmy tannins, no fruit notes, and acid instead of anything else. Not balanced, as I have enjoyed several high acid wines before. The second day, this bottle showed an intoxicating nose of berries (red raspberry and blackberries). The flavor? Same mouth wrenching stems and acidity.
I emailed winemaker number one, and he is kind enough to send a second bottle to see if it’s just that I have not cultivated a palate to appreciate this style of wine. Any thoughts on this???
Austerity and “needing time to open up” are also two very different things.
That being said, one of the few advantages of my habit of taking 2 nights to consume a bottle is the opportunity for wines to flesh out/open up over time.
Not all wines show their cards the minute the cork is pulled. Heck, most do not.