What does the term "sap" or "sappy" mean to you?

[John_Morris]

@alan weinberg

another definition of “sap” would be a guy like me who bought about 50 cases of 96 white Burgundies only to discover premox and have little to no financial recourse!

alan

Finally a succinct, on-topic post!

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

I think before we delve much further into your theory, John, we should find out if your thinking (see quote below) is accurate.

I > think > > a lot of these terms had pretty widely accepted meanings in the trade once upon a time.

So, do you “think,” or are you “sure?” If you’re sure, what is your evidence?

…

bumping this question, as it has been (conveniently) ignored thus far.

[G_D_y_e_r]

@John Morris

I think we need to distinguish between different types of descriptors of wine.

If someone asserts that a wine tastes of brett, or reduced sulfur or reflects the taste of the soil of the particular vineyard, that is a literal, factual assertion about the chemical origin of the sensory experience of the wine and can be proven true or false by chemical analysis (though it would be more difficult in the last case). Similarly, we might be wrong about whether a wine is tannic or acidic; sometimes people can mistake one for the other and I think we’d agree that the chemical analysis would be the determinant of the truth since these purport to be factual descriptions.

That’s quite different from terms such as “sappy” or “minerality.” (I realize some people take minerality more literally; I never have.) I take these to be attempts to express the sensory experience by analogy to other sensory experiences – the faint scent one gets from water flowing over rocks, perhaps, in the case of minerality.

The same would be true describing a wine as having “road tar” or “rose petals.” Using those terms doesn’t imply that the wines have those ingredients, nor does it necessarily imply that the wine has the same chemical components that those things have (though it might). It should mean that smelling them brings to mind those other aromas.

Another example: I use “grapy” for wines that have a very primary quality that reminds me of Welch’s Concord grape juice. (Think young cru Beajolais, Barbera or Dolcetto.) At one very literal level, calling a wine “grapy” seems sort of meaningless since they’re all made from grapes, but I think people can grasp what “grapy” means.

If we, as a linguistic community, agree on analogical/metaphorical terms like “sappy,” “minerality” or “grapy” consistently enough that we know what one another means and agree often enough on the experience (admittedly a big if when it comes to wine, given different tasters’ sensitivities, predelictions and bottle variation), these aren’t descriptions that can be proven wrong or right. The terms are actually defined by how we use them, like “black” and “white.”

I’m up to speed now with what you’re saying. There definitely isn’t a right or wrong when it comes to purely descriptive terms. I’m concerned with a few very specific terms that are meant to evoke the expression of something in a wine that go beyond simple analogy like “grapy” or “road tar” or “rose petals.” Really it’s only the terms that link terroir to specific components of a wine that I find questionable. I’m not arguing against terroir or that it is expressed; rather I think the cause and effect is more complicated. It is not uncommon to overhear a wine professional saying that the vines dig deep (or something like it) to take up minerals from a certain soil, which gives the wine a certain character. I know empirically from experience soil type is correlated with different wine expressions, but the relationship between the soil and the grape is not as so simple as minerals go up the vine as if on a conveyor belt to the fruit.

Actually it would be fine, maybe even better, if we could stick purely to description by analogy. If a wine smells like manure, it may be Brett, it maybe be mercaptans, it may be some of both. You’re better off claiming simply that it smells like a cow patty. And if it smells like struck flint, then that is less confusing to say than minerality as there is no ambiguity in its meaning.

[G_D_y_e_r]

@Paul Seah

Hi, hate to hijacked a very involved thred, but could you please clarify the source of these tests? I just had dinner with Pierre Perrin a few weeks ago, and the topic of Brett was brought up. He told us that he personally did studies of every vintage going back to the 1970s, and only found evidence of Brett in one particular instance. His own theory is that the reduction often found in Mouvedre heavy wines is often confused for Brett by drinkers.

Robert found the link I was thinking of. Do you know if the wines Perrin tested were from their own cellar? Brett bloom seems to depend highly on provenance, so perfectly stored wine might be fine while badly treated bottles might go off.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@G. D y e r

@John Morris

I think we need to distinguish between different types of descriptors of wine.

If someone asserts that a wine tastes of brett, or reduced sulfur or reflects the taste of the soil of the particular vineyard, that is a literal, factual assertion about the chemical origin of the sensory experience of the wine and can be proven true or false by chemical analysis (though it would be more difficult in the last case). Similarly, we might be wrong about whether a wine is tannic or acidic; sometimes people can mistake one for the other and I think we’d agree that the chemical analysis would be the determinant of the truth since these purport to be factual descriptions.

That’s quite different from terms such as “sappy” or “minerality.” (I realize some people take minerality more literally; I never have.) I take these to be attempts to express the sensory experience by analogy to other sensory experiences – the faint scent one gets from water flowing over rocks, perhaps, in the case of minerality.

The same would be true describing a wine as having “road tar” or “rose petals.” Using those terms doesn’t imply that the wines have those ingredients, nor does it necessarily imply that the wine has the same chemical components that those things have (though it might). It should mean that smelling them brings to mind those other aromas.

Another example: I use “grapy” for wines that have a very primary quality that reminds me of Welch’s Concord grape juice. (Think young cru Beajolais, Barbera or Dolcetto.) At one very literal level, calling a wine “grapy” seems sort of meaningless since they’re all made from grapes, but I think people can grasp what “grapy” means.

If we, as a linguistic community, agree on analogical/metaphorical terms like “sappy,” “minerality” or “grapy” consistently enough that we know what one another means and agree often enough on the experience (admittedly a big if when it comes to wine, given different tasters’ sensitivities, predelictions and bottle variation), these aren’t descriptions that can be proven wrong or right. The terms are actually defined by how we use them, like “black” and “white.”

…

Actually it would be fine, maybe even better, if we could stick purely to description by analogy. If a wine smells like manure, it may be Brett, it maybe be mercaptans, it may be some of both. You’re better off claiming simply that it smells like a cow patty. And if it smells like struck flint, then that is less confusing to say than minerality as there is no ambiguity in its meaning.

I agree with this, in a philosophical sense. And it is this belief that leads to my great confusion over John’s (and others’) opinion that the use of the term “sappy” to describe something that tastes/smells like sap is “wrong.”

[G_D_y_e_r]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

I agree with this, in a philosophical sense. And it is this belief that leads to my great confusion over John’s (and others’) opinion that the use of the term “sappy” to describe something that tastes/smells like sap is “wrong.”

I agree with you. I think in some sense the old guard is saying there is jargon, and to understand a field you must learn the jargon. Yet the jargon is not using an unfamiliar term to describe something that cannot be described in another way. It’s using a familiar term in another wholly unfamiliar context, usually when a less ambiguous term would suffice. I don’t think this serves any purpose other than to confuse outsiders (and insiders, it seems). It’s not like there’s a shortage of jargon, either, so why is it necessary to retain certain antiquated or archaic terminologies?

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@G. D y e r

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

I agree with this, in a philosophical sense. And it is this belief that leads to my great confusion over John’s (and others’) opinion that the use of the term “sappy” to describe something that tastes/smells like sap is “wrong.”

I agree with you. I think in some sense the old guard is saying there is jargon, and to understand a field you must learn the jargon. Yet the jargon is not using an unfamiliar term to describe something that cannot be described in another way. It’s using a familiar term in another wholly unfamiliar context, usually when a less ambiguous term would suffice. I don’t think this serves any purpose other than to confuse outsiders (and insiders, it seems). It’s not like there’s a shortage of jargon, either, so why is it necessary to retain certain antiquated or archaic terminologies?

Yes!

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

John, you used the term “accepted meanings,” which inherently implies that there are “not accepted meanings.” I think a fair definition of “not accepted meanings” is “wrong meanings.” You use this in conjunction with a discussion of the “old guard,” while implying that such “accepted meanings” are correct because they were used consistently by knowledgeable people.

Therefore, you did say (imply) that which I said you did.

EDIT: no fair, you deleted your post while I was composing mine.

[John_Morris]

@G. D y e r

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

I agree with this, in a philosophical sense. And it is this belief that leads to my great confusion over John’s (and others’) opinion that the use of the term “sappy” to describe something that tastes/smells like sap is “wrong.”

I agree with you. I think in some sense the old guard is saying there is jargon, and to understand a field you must learn the jargon. Yet the jargon is not using an unfamiliar term to describe something that cannot be described in another way. It’s using a familiar term in another wholly unfamiliar context, usually when a less ambiguous term would suffice. I don’t think this serves any purpose other than to confuse outsiders (and insiders, it seems). It’s not like there’s a shortage of jargon, either, so why is it necessary to retain certain antiquated or archaic terminologies?

First, I said I was never clear on the meaning of sappy, which was why I was intrigued by the heading of this thread originally. I take no position on its meaning.

Second, in a rough sense, you have put my position correctly, though I’d dispense with the tendentious vocabulary of “old guard” and “jargon.” I’d put it this way, if you’re going to use a term that has some established usage, then you ought to use it in the same way.

But there is a crucial distinction between terms such as bretty that refer to something that can be tested apart from sensory experience; whose truth is measured not by agreement among tasters on what they smell or taste but by some other criteria.

“Minerality,” “grapy” and “sappy” are different. That doesn’t make them inferior, any more than a word like “finesse,” which I think we would agree has meaning even if its application in a specific case to wine – or couture or dance or whatever – might be disputed in any given case.

As I reflect on this more, I think the problem here is that we are dealing with descriptors that apply to irreducible sensory experiences. Imagine that you were trying to teach someone the meaning of color words by plain text e-mail (i.e., without pictures). I don’t know how you’d do it. The student has to be in the presence of the object with the teacher to learn the meaning. As wine writing and posting has proliferated, people are using words without reference to how they’ve been applied by other people to the same wines. That’s my point. Hence they cease to be meaningful, or have different meanings to different groups.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@John Morris

@G. D y e r

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

I agree with this, in a philosophical sense. And it is this belief that leads to my great confusion over John’s (and others’) opinion that the use of the term “sappy” to describe something that tastes/smells like sap is “wrong.”

I agree with you. I think in some sense the old guard is saying there is jargon, and to understand a field you must learn the jargon. Yet the jargon is not using an unfamiliar term to describe something that cannot be described in another way. It’s using a familiar term in another wholly unfamiliar context, usually when a less ambiguous term would suffice. I don’t think this serves any purpose other than to confuse outsiders (and insiders, it seems). It’s not like there’s a shortage of jargon, either, so why is it necessary to retain certain antiquated or archaic terminologies?

First, I said I was never clear on the meaning of sappy, which was why I was intrigued by the heading of this thread originally. I take no position on its meaning.

Second, in a rough sense, you have put my position correctly, though I’d dispense with the tendentious vocabulary of “old guard” and “jargon.” I’d put it this way, if you’re going to use a term that has some established usage, then you ought to use it in the same way.

John,

“Old guard” was your term, not mine (or Greg’s). Second, you have done nothing more than hypothesize that the term “sappy” has an “established usage.” Is it your contention that it did (or does)? If your answer to this question is “yes,” on what do you base this?

But there is a crucial distinction between terms such as bretty that refer to something that can be tested apart from sensory experience; whose truth is measured not by agreement among tasters on what they smell or taste but by some other criteria.

“Minerality,” “grapy” and “sappy” are different. That doesn’t make them inferior, any more than a word like “finesse,” which I think we would agree has meaning even if its application in a specific case to wine – or couture or dance or whatever – might be disputed in any given case.

As I reflect on this more, I think the problem here is that we are dealing with descriptors that apply to irreducible sensory experiences. Imagine that you were trying to teach someone the meaning of color words by plain text e-mail (i.e., without pictures). I don’t know how you’d do it. The student has to be in the presence of the object with the teacher to learn the meaning. >

I completely agree with you on this point.

As wine writing and posting has proliferated, people are using words without reference to how they’ve been applied by other people to the same wines. That’s my point. Hence they cease to be meaningful, or have different meanings to different groups.

I still don’t know what source one is supposed to reference? I.E. on what do you base your (apparent) assertion that such terms have “established” or “accepted” meanings/uses?

[John_Morris]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

John, you used the term “accepted meanings,” which inherently implies that there are “not accepted meanings.” I think a fair definition of “not accepted meanings” is “wrong meanings.” You use this in conjunction with a discussion of the “old guard,” while implying that such “accepted meanings” are correct because they were used consistently by knowledgeable people.

Therefore, you did say (imply) that which I said you did.

EDIT: no fair, you deleted your post while I was composing mine.

Did I introduce the term “old guard”? Whatever.

Think of it like this: “Disinterested” means free of bias or self-interest. Yet many people use it to mean “uninterested,” in the sense of being bored by something. I’m prepared to say the first usage is correct and the latter is just a confusion, though with time the corruption may win out and become an accepted meaning.

Wine terminology is more subject to such shifts in meaning because many if not most of the descriptors refer to sensory experiences that can’t be defined except by reference to experience (again, with the exception of terms like brett, tannic, reduced, etc., for which there are criteria independent of our senses).

I really am not a puritan about language whatsoever, but I find a large, large portion of the tasting notes here (and many other places, including in print) pretty much meaningless because people use terms in personal or idiosyncratic ways. By contrast, I find some critics, including Parker, use terms in ways consistent with many other experienced people and their notes are therefore of value to me. I don’t consider Parker “old guard” (he shook up the British monopoly on serious wine writing), but he plainly had tasted with experienced people and conscientiously tried to use the terminology as others did.

There, now having made trouble with my discourses on language, now I’ve injected Parker into this!

[John_Morris]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

Second, you have done nothing more than hypothesize that the term “sappy” has an “established usage.” Is it your contention that it did (or does)? If your answer to this question is “yes,” on what do you base this?

Huh? How many times do I have to say: I don’t know what sappy means!

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

But there is a crucial distinction between terms such as bretty that refer to something that can be tested apart from sensory experience; whose truth is measured not by agreement among tasters on what they smell or taste but by some other criteria.

“Minerality,” “grapy” and “sappy” are different. That doesn’t make them inferior, any more than a word like “finesse,” which I think we would agree has meaning even if its application in a specific case to wine – or couture or dance or whatever – might be disputed in any given case.

As I reflect on this more, I think the problem here is that we are dealing with descriptors that apply to irreducible sensory experiences. Imagine that you were trying to teach someone the meaning of color words by plain text e-mail (i.e., without pictures). I don’t know how you’d do it. The student has to be in the presence of the object with the teacher to learn the meaning. >

I completely agree with you on this point.

As wine writing and posting has proliferated, people are using words without reference to how they’ve been applied by other people to the same wines. That’s my point. Hence they cease to be meaningful, or have different meanings to different groups.

I still don’t know what source one is supposed to reference? I.E. on what do you base your (apparent) assertion that such terms have “established” or “accepted” meanings/uses?

If I’m right about these being things you have to learn firsthand, then there couldn’t be a written reference. (How’s that for a response? )

Looking back, I learned mainly by tasting regularly with people had much more experience than I did, including some in the trade, listening to them describe the same things that I tasted. Allowing for different palates, you can nonetheless over time come to some convergence of usage. And if the people you learn from have interacted with others in the wine world (e.g., in the trade), the convergence can spread beyond the table at which you sit.

I do not contend that these terms were ever precise, or used entirely consistently. Some experienced critics like Clive Coates are hopelessly vague and imprecise. But among writers, some, including Parker, took care with their descriptions. I recall that one of his early books – maybe the one on Bordeaux – had a good lexicon of wine terms at the back with an attempt at definitions. I’m sure one of Hugh Johnson’s books must have a list, too.

[John_Morris]

Brian – Now I’m going to delete that last post, just as you are replying.

[G_D_y_e_r]

@John Morris

As I reflect on this more, I think the problem here is that we are dealing with descriptors that apply to irreducible sensory experiences. Imagine that you were trying to teach someone the meaning of color words by plain text e-mail (i.e., without pictures). I don’t know how you’d do it. The student has to be in the presence of the object with the teacher to learn the meaning. As wine writing and posting has proliferated, people are using words without reference to how they’ve been applied by other people to the same wines. That’s my point. Hence they cease to be meaningful, or have different meanings to different groups.

Nothing I can add to this–you’ve captured the essence of the problem.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@John Morris

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

John, you used the term “accepted meanings,” which inherently implies that there are “not accepted meanings.” I think a fair definition of “not accepted meanings” is “wrong meanings.” You use this in conjunction with a discussion of the “old guard,” while implying that such “accepted meanings” are correct because they were used consistently by knowledgeable people.

Therefore, you did say (imply) that which I said you did.

EDIT: no fair, you deleted your post while I was composing mine.

Did I introduce the term “old guard”? Whatever.

Think of it like this: “Disinterested” means free of bias or self-interest. Yet many people use it to mean “uninterested,” in the sense of being bored by something. I’m prepared to say the first usage is correct and the latter is just a confusion, though with time the corruption may win out and become an accepted meaning.

Wine terminology is more subject to such shifts in meaning because many if not most of the descriptors refer to sensory experiences that can’t be defined except by reference to experience (again, with the exception of terms like brett, tannic, reduced, etc., for which there are criteria independent of our senses).

I am in total agreement with everything in your post up to this point. (Or, to put it another way, you are completely in agreement with me up to this point ----- (aside: the first speaker disagrees with the second speaker just as much as the second speaker disagrees with the first))

I really am not a puritan about language whatsoever, but I find a large, large portion of the tasting notes here (and many other places, including in print) pretty much meaningless because people use terms in personal or idiosyncratic ways.

This is where we start to differ. I would posit that term being discussed here (“sappy”) was used in a personal/idiosyncratic manner from the beginning (since the first person who used it to mean something other than “smells/tastes like sap” – i.e.: the literal meaning of “sappy”).

By contrast, I find some critics, including Parker, use terms in ways consistent with many other experienced people and their notes are therefore of value to me. I don’t consider Parker “old guard” (he shook up the British monopoly on serious wine writing), but he plainly had tasted with experienced people and conscientiously tried to use the terminology as others did … >

Who are these “other experienced people?” From where do you get the “established/accepted meanings” that you’ve heretofore referred to? Thus far, these terms/ideas of yours have been nebulous and undefined; I’m getting the sense that “other experienced people” and “established/accepted use/meaning” is nothing more than your own personal notions of what these terms mean.

You say that “Parker plainly had tasted with experienced people and conscientiously tried to use the terminology as others did …” What is your basis for this assertion?

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

By the way, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that this conversation is simply too complex to be discussed via an online forum. A table, and a bottle – check that, MULTIPLE bottles – of wine are likely required.

[Cris_Whetstone]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

By the way, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that this conversation is simply too complex to be discussed via an online forum. A table, and a bottle – check that, MULTIPLE bottles – of wine are likely required.

Would that be a SapFest?

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@G. D y e r

@John Morris

As I reflect on this more, I think the problem here is that we are dealing with descriptors that apply to irreducible sensory experiences. Imagine that you were trying to teach someone the meaning of color words by plain text e-mail (i.e., without pictures). I don’t know how you’d do it. The student has to be in the presence of the object with the teacher to learn the meaning. As wine writing and posting has proliferated, people are using words without reference to how they’ve been applied by other people to the same wines. That’s my point. Hence they cease to be meaningful, or have different meanings to different groups.

Nothing I can add to this–you’ve captured the essence of the problem.

Yup, and even pictures (of the colors) wouldn’t be perfect, because we all perceive things differently (ever how slight) – i.e.: varying degrees of colorblindness.

Another example: there is a one pound weight “standard”: that’s the only thing in this entire world that weighs exactly one pound, and it only does so by definition. Nothing else weighs exactly one pound. Same thing goes for any other human perception of anything, including taste. Even machinated sensory evaluations/perceptions are imperfect/imprecise, as they are restricted by the imprecise/imperfect humans who designed them; they’re merely precise-enough to serve the purpose(s) for which us humans designed them.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@Cris Whetstone

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

By the way, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that this conversation is simply too complex to be discussed via an online forum. A table, and a bottle – check that, MULTIPLE bottles – of wine are likely required.

Would that be a SapFest?

Only if you’re in attendance!

[G_D_y_e_r]

@Cris Whetstone

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

By the way, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that this conversation is simply too complex to be discussed via an online forum. A table, and a bottle – check that, MULTIPLE bottles – of wine are likely required.

Would that be a SapFest?

I’ll bring the retsina!

Then we can debate what to call the pine resin flavor so that it does not conflict with the usage of descriptors like resinous and sappy . . . .