I chose the ‘tasting notes-flavor descriptions’ option, but I think what I’m really looking for is ‘tasting note-structural descriptions’. I think this would be halfway between a typical note (“there’s just like the faintest soupçon of like asparagus and just a flutter of a, like a, nutty Edam cheese”) and an impression (young, old, thin, flabby).
I think every person has a different impression of maturity in wine. So the pure impression may not be useful. But giving a semi-objective note can permit the reader to decide if the wine is ready/right per his/her tastes. I prefer notes describing the tannins (hard, soft, mellow, etc.) and acidity (tart, flabby, etc.), for example, versus those that are even more subjective (fully mature, too young).
I like tasting notes because sometimes I will be drinking a wine and not be able to describe a flavor then read some notes and say “wow, that really describes it well”. Of course I have read tons of notes that described an experience different than my own. Impressions are maybe more unreliable than flavor descriptions because people tend to have different sensitivities to tannin and acid and some people don’t like aged wine. I also think young wine is hard to eval because an abundance of fruit, tannin and acid may mask imperfections, even when the pros re-taste it is not always pretty and some wines are downgraded significantly. I always enjoy reading what people think about wine, notes or impressions, but know with variation, personal preference etc. that the only note or impression that matters is mine.
My answer was all the above so I can have a picture as complete as possible.
I like tasting notes that describe the style and structure of the wine. I am looking more for general impressions within those notes, such as red or dark fruit (and does it seem fresh/jammy/tart/etc), intensity, how much oak and how does it come across, how much tannin and how does it feel, body weight, things of that nature. That way I can try to decide if I might like the style of the wine. I really don’t care if that dark fruit is blackberry or boysenberry, but I do care if it smells/tastes like fresh juice or stewed fruit.
Thinking more about it, I also like to know the impression as far as like/dislike. I like to use a simple scale, however one relates to the ideas of poor/acceptable/good/very good/outstanding to borrow language from the WSET. I’m keeping my vote with tasting notes, though, because unless I know the taster’s palate those are more useful to me. If I know the taster’s palate, impression of quality and enjoyment is great to know.
I like writing tasting notes as it assists me in thinking in a deeper and more structured manner about the wine I’m tasting. This is especially true when I am blind tasting wines; if I can assess a wine in an organised manner and be aware of all of its characters then I stand a better chance of identifying it. I do enjoy blind tasting, it strikes me as a very good way of assessing the quality of a wine without being influenced by the label.
Certainly I recognise that not everyone would like my somewhat… erm… ‘enthusiastic’ style of note-taking, but when I read ones I’ve written in the past I feel abundantly aware of the impression the wines made on me. So at least the tasting notes mean something to me:)
Reading other people’s notes is good as well. Best if you know the note-writer’s preferences, so you understand how they calibrate against your own. It is also handy to be aware of the style of the wine that someone is writing a note about. For example, I generally know what Jean Boxler’s wines are like, so if I read a note on one of his wines I haven’t tried I have a base-line to compare it with and can (hopefully) get from the note a sense of how that wine is unique.
I don’t like tasting notes of the ‘endless lists of fruits’-type. How about the note reported here for a really pretentious example of that style of note. I prefer specific, focussed comments on the important components of a wine, but it is also important to read the impression someone has of a wine in a more subjective, personal matter; I want to know if someone actually likes a wine and why they like it.
Indeed, pretentious crap tasting notes are more irritating that it is possible to believe. I was once giving a blind tasting to people who should have been reasonably competent and asked for their comments on one of the wines. The first chap I questioned said, “I don’t know why, but this wine reminds me of a small village I once visited in France.” I replied, “So you think this wine is ‘village-y’? What the hell does that mean?” Trotting out such meaningless drivel just gets me exasperated.
Although, this does give me an idea for a good thread…
Yes! I’m a big fan of this approach. I (we) are in the minority on this, I think. I’ve suggested in other venues that long lists of ultra-specific fruits and aromas are not all that helpful–I might even have said they’re rather douche-y. Well, let’s just say my POV is not popular!
What a person writes for his own purposes is fine. But so often notes clearly intended for a public venue are borderline incomprehensible.
Another great poll! Like impressions as well, and perhaps 3 or 4 key components tasted if I were to buy a wine for personal enjoyment. The longer the description gets, the more I take a step back and question?
I like Tom Hill’s approach with his “bloody pulpit”. An honest assessment of all aspects of the wine, not just the flavors.
For a more formal “tasting note” I like hearing about the wine’s style, acidity, texture, balance, can you taste the alcohol? Other things like is this a simple everyday drinker or a serious wine. Is it a good value for the price point. Is there a wow factor. Ready to drink now, with air or does it need time?
There is the flavor camp (RMP), structural camp (Burghound) but I think I fall in an overall “experience” camp.
Just hearing about the thousands of flavors doesn’t help me at all. Thats why I find WS tasting notes (JL) pretty much useless and rely on the score more from them. A writer like a John Reynolds adds the details I am looking for more than most writters.
Nice thread topic. I can agree that impressions are of more use for me. That said, the tasting notes are interesting to read as I appreciate the peek into someone’s intimate space. Voyeur like enjoyment? Sure. Oddly enough I dont wish to have a similar experience as the author of a note, I just want a glimpse as to how the wine made that person feel, furthermore to read how they may express it.
As far as my personal choice to not wrote notes or impressions I believe there are too many variables that I see as tangible for my own experience. What did I eat before or during, wine temp, ambient temp, my mood, ambient fragrances, other wines in recent memory (very important for me). These can all shape my perception of a wine. This lowers the value of what I have to say about a given wine, on a given day.
I prefer tasting notes, but not just from a “professional.” Here in this forum, I can obtain a variety of descriptors from people with different expectations, opinions, preferences and expertise. When tasting one the noted wines, I can look for the various descriptors, some of which I might miss if I wasn’t actually looking for it and in some cases learn the proper terminology for something I’m tasting and don’t know how to describe. It also helps see who here is full of
I like these type of notes/impressions as well. I find the people who attempt exact flavour profiles and make obscure analogies come off as either grasping or pretentious. I will use obvious flavour descriptors but, I don’t reach far; not much chance of seeing a type of pear specifically refered to in one of my notes.
I find endless lists of flavors useless also. I already know what flavors are in a particular type of wine. What I want to know is how this wine is styled within that type (light, heavy, tannic, etc.), whether it has noticeable flaws, etc.
More I read about TN and even comments, more I am convinced that it is always a big to huge difference between what is written by someone who does not have the same palate as mine and what I feel when I taste the wine. Moreover, the circumstances of the tastings are always a key factor to consider.
This is the reason why I do ask more and more to professionnal tasters like Michel Bettane in France to describe in details the STYLE desired and/or achieved by the producers, the typicity of his terroirs which are the real usefull informations.
When I read that Rousseau is a perfect balance between power, structure and finesse, when I read that JF Mugnier wines are more on the subtle fruit and harmonious length, when I read that Dugat-Py is always the king of marmelade for his lovers worldwide, when I learn that Gauby has completly changed his way, when I read that Perrot-Minot is coming back from “too much” in everything towards a new balance, when I learn that Haut-Bailly does not care at all about quick consumption and want their wines to remain in a cellar for at least 10 years, then I have a real information which I can understand and which may drive my decision making policy.
In the real life, here as well as in Europe, the basic reader looks at the score over 96 and under 85. What is in the middle has virtually not big effect on his decision. We will always taste the wines first, before buying more than a case. In other words, basically, we trust ourselves better than we trust others. And now if you add the fact that under each “word” used for wine description,n too many interpretation can be done, then you have the reality.
Conclusion : we read TN more for checking where do we stand, where we are versus some “pro” than to trust blind what is written.
![[bullshit.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/3/3841080fbf208212e51bd1a961c64308a3a6d06f.gif "[bullshit.gif]")
