What wine terminology makes you cringe?

[Corey_N]

“drank with Kathy”

[Richard_Malloy]

@Larry Stein

@Berry Crawford

@Larry Stein

Not among wine pros it hasn’t (I was off and on ITB for 7 years).

Actually I disagree. I notice both growers and winemakers mention say varietal all the time. It makes me think of Fleming each time.

They’re wrong. Period. I don’t hesitate in correcting people on this, even in person.

And then we all cringe from your boorish behavior, and even more acutely than when “varietal’s” misuse clanged mildly against the ear.

[Chris_Seiber]

Brunelli and Baroli turn me off a bit (when dropped into something written in English, that is).

It reminds me of when I was in college in the 1980s, and people would hilariously overpronounce Nicaragua during those old debates about the Contra rebels and Daniel Ortega and all. Not any other country or city name they ever spoke of (they never said Moskva, or Roma, or Deutchland) , just Nicaragua.

Very minor, of course, and no offense intended to those who do so, as I understand that pleasing my ears isn’t everyone’s concern or priority.

[ToddFrench]

@Mike de Lange

@Todd F r e n c h

@Mike de Lange

Wow. After reading through the first 15 posts or so I gave up in disgust. While I had few illusions about the general level of actual olfactory acuteness or general tasting ability on this board, the above still made my jaw drop to the floor.

The choice of wording has little to do with the level of olfactory acuteness or general tasting abilities of any one person, or group of people.

Okay, I’ll bite. What are you saying exactly? I read your comment to mean that very proficient tasters somehow prefer to come across as idiots, but can’t believe that is what you intended.

I’m saying that one’s choice of terminology in writing or verbal communication is not at all relative to how well a person can taste or smell. With regards to wine, in fact, I find that some of the best tasters not only do not use specific terminology, some use very little or none at all, and on the contrary, many of the florid writers seemingly have a poor palate, quite frankly, and are overcompensating.

Style of writing and terminology used in writing have nothing to do with one’s senses - be them taste, smell, sight, or touch - in a nutshell.

[Larry_Stein]

@Richard Malloy

And then we all cringe from your boorish behavior, and even more acutely than when “varietal’s” misuse clanged mildly against the ear.

One doesn’t have to be boorish to do so.

[Bruce_Leiser_owitz]

@Larry Stein

@Berry Crawford

@Larry Stein

Not among wine pros it hasn’t (I was off and on ITB for 7 years).

Actually I disagree. I notice both growers and winemakers mention say varietal all the time. It makes me think of Fleming each time.

They’re wrong. Period. I don’t hesitate in correcting people on this, even in person.

The variety/varietal argument has been

While I understand the distinction, I’ve heard many people use “varietal” when technically you could argue they should have used “variety.” It isn’t an “error” that
bothers me, however. I understand what they mean, so it doesn’t rise to the “cringe” level. Instead, I’m more concerned when people say a wine is “corked” when in
fact the issue has nothing to do with TCA.

As always, YMMV.

Bruce

[alan_weinberg]

tired of the misspellings–seemless for seamless, pallet for palate, it’s for the possessive its. Tired of “transparent” and “transparency,” tired of the precise adjectives pinpointing the exact molecule as if winetasting were a quantifiable science–such as Valrhona Guanaja chocolate, Cuban tobacco, specific exact type of peach, etc.

Rant over.

[DougS]

@Berry Crawford

@larry schaffer

My comments were more aimed at wineries and winemakers who make these claims…Just don’t like it used for ‘marketing purposes’ - that’s all.

How come? “Burgundian” is an archetype that conveys a lot of meaning in one word. Ive used it in conversations when trying to describe what Im trying to achieve with my wines and people seem to know what Im saying.

Of course in reality, a lot of Burgundies (even great ones) don’t match the archetype but I think we as a wine community all have a general sense of what the term means. Whats wrong with using a word that increases the ease of communication? Or do you disagree with premise that it is a well understood archetype?

I agree that the term, and ones like it, can be meaningful, but EVERY time a winemaker or winery rep has used “Burgundian” to describe a domestic PN or Chard to me, the wine has been anything but. The winemakers who make wines that I really might mistake for Burgundy seem not to use the term.

[Berry_Crawford]

@Doug Schulman

but EVERY time a winemaker or winery rep has used “Burgundian” to describe a domestic PN or Chard to me, the wine has been anything but

That’s actually a pretty fair critique.

Im going to switch to Jura-like

[Mike_de_Lange]

@Todd F r e n c h

(…)

@Mike de Lange

Okay, I’ll bite. What are you saying exactly? I read your comment to mean that very proficient tasters somehow prefer to come across as idiots, but can’t believe that is what you intended.

I’m saying that one’s choice of terminology in writing or verbal communication is not at all relative to how well a person can taste or smell. With regards to wine, in fact, I find that some of the best tasters not only do not use specific terminology, some use very little or none at all, and on the contrary, many of the florid writers seemingly have a poor palate, quite frankly, and are overcompensating.

Style of writing and terminology used in writing have nothing to do with one’s senses - be them taste, smell, sight, or touch - in a nutshell.

With regards to the bold sentence above, that depends very much on the definition of what a great taster actually should be able to do.
While I agree that there is indeed a lot of overcompensation to be found from relatively unexperienced -rather than poor- palates, your last blanket statement does not do justice to the fact that at least the WSET has been making a concerted effort to establish a unified terminology in describing wine for the past decades. To use it with any sort of confidence or accuracy, one needs to do both serious studying and accumulate extensive tasting experience. So, it would seem that in that sense at the very least, the aforementioned blanket statement is incorrect.

[Robert.A.Jr]

I will now have performance anxiety over my next TN post . . . .

[Roberto_Rogness]

Mouthfeel is a billion dollar industry worldwide in food processing. Hundreds of samples are tried before that yoghurt or potato chip goes to market to make sure that, above anything else, the mouthfeel is right. Scores of additives and many processes (emulsifiers, whipping air into ice cream) are used to enhance it. It is probably at least one third of your tasting experience.

Would “texture” be better for you?

[TomHill]

@Berry Crawford

@Jay Miller

Other than variety/varietal none of the above make me cringe.

The colloquial usage of the term has won. You guys need to admit defeat.

So…I was just writing a friend.
Should I say “my passion for Rhone varieties” or “my passion for Rhone varietals”.
It seems the correct one depends upon what’s in my mind, what I’m thinking, and I only allow the NSA
unfettered access to my mind.
Tom

[Paul_Jaouen]

Why all the negativity towards tannins? I love notes that describe the tannins. Quite important to me.

[ToddFrench]

@Mike de Lange

@Todd F r e n c h

(…)
Okay, I’ll bite. What are you saying exactly? I read your comment to mean that very proficient tasters somehow prefer to come across as idiots, but can’t believe that is what you intended.
I’m saying that one’s choice of terminology in writing or verbal communication is not at all relative to how well a person can taste or smell. With regards to wine, in fact, I find that some of the best tasters not only do not use specific terminology, some use very little or none at all, and on the contrary, many of the florid writers seemingly have a poor palate, quite frankly, and are overcompensating.

Style of writing and terminology used in writing have nothing to do with one’s senses - be them taste, smell, sight, or touch - in a nutshell.

With regards to the bold sentence above, that depends very much on the definition of what a great taster actually should be able to do.
While I agree that there is indeed a lot of overcompensation to be found from relatively unexperienced -rather than poor- palates, your last blanket statement does not do justice to the fact that at least the WSET has been making a concerted effort to establish a unified terminology in describing wine for the past decades. To use it with any sort of confidence or accuracy, one needs to do both serious studying and accumulate extensive tasting experience. So, it would seem that in that sense at the very least, the aforementioned blanket statement is incorrect.

I disagree.

While those taking the WSET test may need to learn to use specific descriptive terminology, and some have no problem using it, with or without WSET guidance and rules, the abilities one has to taste, smell, touch, or see do not correlate whatsoever with writing style, vocabulary knowledge, grammar usage, or number of languages spoken or written. Great wine writers are those who can combine exceptional tasting abilities with descriptive writing, but to state, as you did previously, (via a broad-brushed insult to the community here, I might add) that there exists a low level of olfactory acuteness on this forum based on terms that some individuals are annoyed by is patently false. There are a variety of reasons why some terminology is annoying to wine lovers, and I’d venture a guess that most often, it is because those terms are so frequently overused, or misused, or both, thus decrying their value as a descriptive tool.

[Kim_Caldwell]

@Larry Stein

That’s easy.

VARIETAL when referring to the grape. It’s VARIETY!!!

Variety refers to the grape variety, grown and used to make the wine. Pinot Noir is a variety, NOT a varietal!!

Varietal is an adjective, and refers to the wine. It describes a wine that is made from a single or dominant grape variety. Such wines are called varietal wines.

I’ve even seen some wine professionals use varietal for the grape in articles. That’s simply inexcusable for someone ITB.

I hate this too. In fact, I often wonder if I should use the word incorrectly as well – because people look at me like I’m the one who is wrong!!! LOL

[J_a_y_H_a_c_k]

@Ian Brand

Ditto on mouthfeel. Makes me imagine someone sticking a few digits in my mouth and copping a feel. Yuck!

-1
I use it a lot, I know what it means and I generally understand what other people mean by using it. Better than “fecal notes overlayed on a bed of fresh ground fenugreek and Malaysian dung beetle spice.”

[S_Reynolds]

@Paul Jaouen

Why all the negativity towards tannins? I love notes that describe the tannins. Quite important to me.

Yes, tannin has a big impact on mouthfeel, after all.

[Linda_Baehr]

@Corey N.

“drank with Kathy”

What do you have against Kathy? Not knifey enough for you?


I like using the word poo for Bretty wine. Anyone who doesn’t like that is full of poo.

[Mark_B]

I hope the following clears up some confusion over my dislike for the words “tannins” and “mouthfeel”.

The word “mouthfeel” in and of itself means nothing. I understand that there are aspects that make up a “mouthfeel” that add substance once explained. When describing “mouthfeel” in a wine I feel the only quantifiable aspects are that of viscosity (most apparent in white wines, think oily rhone varieties, etc) and the weight of a red wine in direct correlation to the amount of tannins in the wine that are a factor of grape varieties and the age of the red wine/level of filtering. Tannic levels are always at their highest in young reds but are perceived much differently if the wine is left to age for a substantial amount of time and the tannins/sediment are still left in your wine without being filtered. For this reason, I feel tannins are too hard to understand/quantify when there is such age discrepancies and levels of filtering (or lack thereof) going on.