What wine terminology makes you cringe?

[ky1em1ttskus]

Damn, there are a lot of pedants here!

As usual, I agree with Chris Seiber and Larry Tercero. I agree with some other answers, too, but how can “tannin” be a cringe-worthy word when talking about wine?

[Corey_N]

@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.

This one is:

Actually I sorta like the word “poo” for “brett”, though I’m more likely to verbalize it than write it.

[ToddFrench]

@Mark J. Boldizsar

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.

Mark,

To clarify further, are you referring only to the use of ‘mouthfeel’ with a broad adjective such as ‘nice’, aka ‘nice mouthfeel’?

[ky1em1ttskus]

@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.

Trying to describe a perception and then wanting that perception to be understood universally is a hero’s errand. And like any great hero’s errand, the hero will fail. The world’s and time’s best authors have spent and are spending their lives trying to do this accurately. And they’ll tell you it’s never good enough. Stepping off my literary/linguistic .

[Mark_B]

Mark,

To clarify further, are you referring only to the use of ‘mouthfeel’ with a broad adjective such as ‘nice’, aka ‘nice mouthfeel’?

My opinion is that “mouthfeel” is simply the sense of touch. Feel is touch, not taste, so I regard it as only meaning the viscosity of whites and the weight of reds based on the tannic level of the wine when it is opened and tasted.

[ToddFrench]

@Mark J. Boldizsar

Mark,

To clarify further, are you referring only to the use of ‘mouthfeel’ with a broad adjective such as ‘nice’, aka ‘nice mouthfeel’?

My opinion is that “mouthfeel” is simply the sense of touch. Feel is touch, not taste, so I regard it as only meaning the viscosity of whites and the weight of reds based on the tannic level of the wine when it is opened and tasted.

Absolutely. Have you seen it used to describe taste rather than ‘feel’/touch??

[PeterH]

@Paul Jaouen

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

Note that I object only to inappropriate use of “sweet tannins” to describe a wine with ripe, forward fruit (and probably RS).
“Gritty tannins” is fine. “Fine tannins” is descriptive. “Resolved tannins” is useful information, if the taster has knowledge that the wine had noticeable tannins earlier.

P Hickner

[Mike_de_Lange]

@Todd F r e n c h

(…)
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.

@Mike de Lange

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.

@Todd F r e n c h

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.

@Todd F r e n c h

(…)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.

Touché and point taken, despite the fact that I never argued along those lines to begin with. I could have confined my remarks to those who posted, I suppose.

As for the central argument of whether or not one’s writing style correlates with tasting/olfactory abilities, we are not going to agree. Furthermore, your last statement in bold -while largely correct- has little to do with this disagreement. I feel I have sufficiently stated my point and since you choose above to broaden the scope of this discussion to include other sensory input (???), I see little point in continuing it.

[Roberto_Rogness]

There’s a lot more to mouthfeel than weight and viscosity: lots of interaction between alcohol, oak, tannins, acidity, glycerin, effervescence and even particulates in the wine.

[Mark_B]

Absolutely. Have you seen it used to describe taste rather than ‘feel’/touch??

Good question. When I see the term used it is usually along the lines of “smooth mouthfeel”,“good mouthfeel”, etc. I quantify it as touch only, so in that regard it tells you absolutely nothing about the taste of the wine. I believe most people are using the word to describe the level of tannins they perceive in the wine at any given point in the wine’s life. Take for example two identical bottles of a decent Bordeaux; one is opened 3-4 years after vintage and the other ages for 30-40 years before it is consumed. The “mouthfeel”,tannic level(after filtering), and weight of the wines are all night and day by comparison.

[J_Singleton]

I don’t think I want to drink wine anymore. It’s now no longer fun.

[Roberto_Rogness]

@Mark J. Boldizsar

When I see the term used it is usually along the lines of “smooth mouthfeel”,“good mouthfeel”, etc. I quantify it as touch only, so in that regard it tells you absolutely nothing about the taste of the wine.

It tells you about the STRUCTURE of the wine which is often MORE important than the flavors in matching with foods or even deciding if it is refreshing or not by itself. Essential info if you ask me…

[Larry_P]

@J. Singleton

I don’t think I want to drink wine anymore. It’s now no longer fun.

Indeed. And I’m changing my cringe-vote to “great taster”.

[Mark_B]

It tells you about the STRUCTURE of the wine which is often MORE important than the flavors in matching with foods or even deciding if it is refreshing or not by itself. Essential info if you ask me…

Roberto, you bring up some good points. I’ve found the only three things I need to take into account when pairing wine with foods or deciding to drink them on their own is their tannic level/weight, perceived level of acidity, and their flavors/taste.

[Keith_Levenberg]

In many, many cases, the difference between two wines of the same type where one of them costs 5 or 10 times as much as the other one is almost entirely a difference in mouthfeel. So, yeah, count me as another person who considers it a useful word and valuable information.

[Mark_B]

In many, many cases, the difference between two wines of the same type where one of them costs 5 or 10 times as much as the other one is almost entirely a difference in mouthfeel

What is the difference in “mouthfeel” of which you speak?

[mike_pobega]

My view.
What you really have is a (time) culture clash, one that has taken 40 years to evolve. When I first started enjoying wine, guys like Broadbent et all would use terms like ‘legs’ often. These days I don’t see it used much, and when I do I think right away to the old guard. I also think that many of today’s note makers have really delved into the different qualities of a wine, certainly more than the Color/Nose/Taste thing of old. Many of those time honored wine qualities like color, where once one spend much time on describing have now turned into youthful or advanced; gone is the Carmine/Burnt Umber thing (although I revive it from time to time). With the advent of the internet, we have a whole new well to pull from when it comes to ‘descriptors’. I see no issue with varietal/variety as I know what the message is. I also have no problem with mouth feel, and use it often when conveying what I want to say about…mouth feel. We need to remember the ‘subjectiveness’ of this thing. Just last week I was told by a friend that my recent notes are coming across slightly pretentious; I can tell you that pretension is never my goal, but describing what I am finding is. I think I veer off course when I add things like my ‘back deck’ or the ‘company I am with’ at that moment have ‘clouded’ my overall impression of a wine and if things like who and where I am drinking with is coming through in my notes is superfluous and not important to the reader, it certainly is not intentional or meant to piss the reader off, but set the tone.

Ha! In one post I have both answered the original question and added my wine manifesto……

Anyway, it’s all good.

[Richard_Malloy]

@Mark J. Boldizsar

@Keith Levenberg

In many, many cases, the difference between two wines of the same type where one of them costs 5 or 10 times as much as the other one is almost entirely a difference in mouthfeel

What is the difference in “mouthfeel” of which you speak?

It has to do with a certain Burgundian ethereality. . .

(Just kidding. Except I’m not kidding. Go ahead and hate me!)

[W_Leonard]

@Mark J. Boldizsar

In many, many cases, the difference between two wines of the same type where one of them costs 5 or 10 times as much as the other one is almost entirely a difference in mouthfeel

What is the difference in “mouthfeel” of which you speak?

I am not going to speak for Keith but a great example that comes to mind are the wines of Chambolle-Musigny. Chambolle is known for a “velvet mouthfeel.” Some have it more than others while others fail completely to capture this essence. Those that have the greatest typicality of this Chambolle “mouthfeel” usually fetch higher prices and come from choicer vineyards. It is more than texture as others have noted because it involves ripeness, tannin etc etc and that pesky bugger, “terroir.”

[Richard_Malloy]

Told ya!