I don’t know if its the least useful but the most annoying to me is “chewy”. Toffee is chewy, a cookie can be chewy, if my wine is chewy than its not really a liquid anymore. I get why the descriptor is used but it seems overly pretentious to me.
“nice”, “good”, “great” with no additional context/description.
Chewy has meaning to me so I find it useful, but can easily understand that others might not.
But why pretentious?
A strong candidate for me is “terroir.” Putting aside all of the mumbo-jumbo that goes along with the philosophical construct, “terroir” in a tasting note rarely tells me anything useful. At best, it’s a taster’s summary for why they think this wine from this place is distinctive. It doesn’t describe the qualities of the nose or taste that in turn would cause me to think the wine IS distinctive. If you think there’s something distinctive about the wine, describe it as best you can; don’t just wax poetic about how the wine accurately reflects its so-called “terroir.”
Bruce
Fair enough, but as you defined it, it can mean almost any wine that is unbalanced and overpowered by tannins, acids, etc. I am not complaining when people use it, per se, but frankly, I find it to be such a stock phrase that it has become meaningless and, hence, useless to me.
I guess we could branch this into two threads – “least useful” and “pretentious” terms…
It means the opposite of “Full mid palate”.
But if you don’t mentally divide the tasting experience into attack, middle (or mid-palate), and finish, well, there’s nothing for you to understand.
Decent explanation here: How to Taste Wine Like a Professional
I tend to agree, this is only usefull to drinkers who are experienced with the vineyard.
That said, if I hear that a “Rosella’s”, “Sherrer Vineyard”, “Carlisle Vineyard”, “Papera Ranch”, Whitton Ranch “Geyserville” or “Ueberroth” (etc.) is true to form - it’s useful to me.
and thats fine. If I say a wine shows typical Vosne spice and you know what that is, you get it in two words. It’s fine to use things like that… Unless that’s all one uses.
Roberto - that’s likely true and it’s why I scratch my head when someone says their wine has notes of violets or roses. Rose people are just as geeky as wine people and I have over 50 different roses in my garden, none of which smell alike. Some are sweet and some have a distinct notes of black peppers and so on. Same with the blossoms on the apple trees, and of course, they’re related to roses. But various varieties smell different.
“Violets” is a more specific term but I always wonder how many people actually get down on their hands and knees to sniff them. The problem is, one can parse it almost endlessly.
OTOH, I’m quite comfortable when someone says “floral” as that conveys the impression w/out the attempt at precision that isn’t there and thus in some ways is more precise, as the whole point of a tasting note is to convey impressions anyway. All the people who say “rose” should use that term instead.
Sometimes I get aromas that remind me of wet hay. I don’t know exactly how to describe that except as grassy or wet hay. Often that’s after the wine is out of the glass and I’m sniffing the dregs - I assume that it’s often from oak, but I don’t know.
Right now I’m drinking a Mourvèdre and it’s stinky as hell - all those walks in the livestock ranch come into it. Here’s what others say about this wine:
“earthy-mushroom nose . . . along with some candied plum and cherry”
“meaty aroma and intense flavors of black licorice, dark plum, smoke and mineral”
“perfume is full of savory notes and dried herbs”
“Enticing, layered aromas of fresh berry, lively spice and dried brush”
I don’t really get those things - no meat at all. Dried herbs? Maybe but it’s a stretch.
My own description is that it’s funky, has a hint of mushrooms but not like you’d get on an older Bordeaux say, somehow it seems very sulfury to me on the nose. It’s biodynamic so I don’t think they added much sulfur though. Very good overall but a bit medicinal on the finish.
Via twitter by @ItalianWineGeek (who is REALLY cute!): "This is what I picture when people use wine descriptors like “chewy”. twitter.com/96OOLmbG "
Just saw a tasting note at a restaurant
“big like a texas cloud”
huh?
@ItalianWineGeek (who is REALLY cute!):
Dude - I’m desperate here. I checked out the website and I got a picture of a dog! WTF?
Oh wait. Is it Joanie?
OK.
That was her post about “chewy”, this is her: http://twitter.com/#!/ItalianWineGeek/
I’ve lived in Texas Charlie. That sounds like a warning.
Anything afflixed to a RMP 90 tattler.
In my experience speaking to people new to wine or who feel intimidated by wine, this is a fairly quoted word for the “pomp and circumstance” that can come from wine enthusiasts. I understand why people like it and it does describe something pretty succinctly but there are simpler, more inclusive ways to describe the experience that might require a few more words. Someone drinking wine without anyone more experienced around can try to search for “lime blossom” and “forest floor” and succeed or fail but at least know what they are looking for. Pretty hard to stumble into chewy on your own or until you’ve tried a lot of different wines.
I don’t use it to mean overly tannic or acidic; just missing something in the middle – where one expects more concentration between attack and finish given the rest of the structure (tannin and acid). I don’t really think of these wines being unbalanced; just a little lacking and perhaps in danger of being unbalanced with time.
But you raise a larger issue that pervades this discussion: There are lots of terms that have meaning among people in the trade but which are used by many without knowledge of the original meaning. (“Minerality” and “high-toned” come to mind.)
The truth is, any term can become meaningless if people don’t know what it means to begin with! That’s separate from pretentious and utterly subjective terms, but a pervasive problem!
Yes. Using tasting note terms such as Vosne spice or Pauillac lead pencil or Graves cigar box or Heitz Martha’s minty eucalyptus is vastly more helpful to me as a reader of TN’s than using a relatively generic and conclusory phrase such as “terroir.”
Bruce
No one uses terroir as an adejective though. I’ve never seen someone write that a wine has terroir. I’ve seen plenty of TNs that say a wine is ‘true to its terroir’ etc… but those are no more inside baseball than your examples. IF you don’t know what 'Vosne spice" means, it’s not worth much. Likewise, if you don’t know what a wine’s terroir should be that phrase is useless. However, very few notes use that and ONLY that. It’s usually one of a string of adjectives. That it doesn’t work for you is the same as someone using ‘forest floor’ and that adjective not being useful to a person.
At the end of the day, not every single adjective is going to work for everyone. Some of that will be because the adjective chosen isn’t useful, some will be because the reader has less experience with tastes and smells than average. IN all cases, whining about how someone is sharing their impressions strikes me as petty. Someone is taking the time to try to convey what they thought of a wine. If they use an adjective or two that strikes the reader as silly or not useful, read the rest of the note and MOVE ON.