Here in Northern SF Bay, we have forests with a mixture of Redwood, Bay, Oak, and Madrone.
There is an aroma I get while hiking these mountains that I sometimes get in red wine, especially cabernet.
It is in the air, but also comes up from the earth.
I don’t get why someone would say it’s okay to say you smelled it, but not tasted.
Taste comes from smell.
Sometimes a taste reminds you of something you smelled.
So, if I read “forest floor”, I assume it’s a melange of earth, wood and savory spices. A melange that would be a pain in the butt to list out specifically.
Here’s what cracks me up; “forest floor” indicates to me such a melange of aromas and flavors that if you use the term, I think you’re about done. But, I often see forest floor included with references to eight or nine other flavor/aroma notes. I think some people go overboard listing aromas and flavors.
Sure. Well, more correctly, I’d note that the nose held notes of forest floor. One reason I try to write notes that talk about the nose and palate separately is that some things are prominent in one place, not the other.
This is what I was getting at. I always find a flavor of forest floor perplexing though that is not the only one. I think someone made the point above that it is probably better communication to use descriptors and flavors that are somewhat common to many.
Yep. Sometimes the extra adjectives are pretension, sometimes they’re trying to communicate a difference. Specificity can be good if it’s not overdone… “floral” vs “white flowers” vs “lime blossoms”. The latter is a pretty specific aroma and useful if you’ve smelled those. “Floral” is fine, but could be roses or lime blossoms or, hell, gardenias. “White flowers” isn’t bad… until you consider that it could be lilies…
eh. At some point, I’m going to use adjectives that describe the wine to me. If someone’s never smelled X, well, I can’t control that. If they’ve never walked out in the forest I can’t control that. Honestly, being pissy about what adjectives people use in their TNs seems childish to me. If there are several adjectives used and a reader doesn’t get one, oh well, move the frack on. Don’t bitch at the writer, they’ve at least been kind enough to take some time and share their impressions with you.
Have you sold your stash of Chateau Montelena yet? Are you going to renounce your Giants fandom when they roll out their French Heritage Night promotion next year with orange and black berets to the first 20,000 fanatiques?
Fresh fruit is quite different from fruit. That’s why jammy is a familiar flavor.
Branding the chocolate is a little much (a paid product placement?), but I always take that to mean a dark chocolate note rather than more prosaic than milk chocolate.
Not being very horticulturally inclined, I find myself describing some wines as being like “floral talc”-- whatever that perfume is. It’s a very specific aroma to me.
We can agree to disagree but I always hear cat pee referred to as an aroma and never a flavor. This is a good example that marries up to what I meant about forest floor.
I love when I read “forest floor”…because I know it is something I won’t like. I too, think I understand what it mean. John explains it pretty well. But to me, I hear it most with bordeaux wines that people love…the ones that are, to me, over the hill, or wines that have no or very little fruit left but have the structure to keep holding on. The perfect example to me was when a friend opened a 1928 Canon. He and others were raving about it because it basically still tasted something like wine, albeit old…very old. I shrugged and said, “it sucks!! JUst admit it and stop the group hug”
“Approximately 80-90% of what we perceive as “taste” actually is due to the sense of smell.”
“It is appropriate that we consider taste and smell together because they are so intertwined in our experience that most people are unaware that most of what they call taste is really an olfactory experience.”