MaskedMarvel wrote:Actually - this is exactly what i was looking for. Advise on how to taste, and what to do when tasting. Thanks!

RPM - I just opened a 2004 Kenwood Cab and tasted it per your post above. I'm shocked at the difference between this taste and my usual experience with this bottle. Very helpful! I'm inclined to adjust my tasting to your style now. While I'm looking for the whole mouth experience, as is Sanity, this truly did offer a new layer of the experience to me.

I wanted to add what i think is a very quirky tasting ritual when I open a bottle for myself that I've never heard mentioned. RIGHT after popping the cork, I sniff the inside of the neck. I want to get an immediate impression, literally imagining I can smell the air of the winery as the wine was bottled some years ago. I know it's probably infantile and dramatic, but I imagine being there and breathing the air as the cork goes in. I also feel it gives me the truest experience of the growth of the wine from start to finish.

When I taste more seriously, I usually make a lot more noise, also. Air was taught to me at a young age to be the most important factor in drinking wine, and when seriously tasting, I bubble, swish, chew, and roll. I love it when it works with what I'm drinking and can almost tell right away how the bottle is going to mature after opening from the first inhalation.

As to whole mouth feel, see my note above.

I think it is a mistake to sniff immediately after pulling the cork. I'll sniff the cork, but with an immediate sniff of the neck, you run the risk of getting a whiff of sulfer dioxide, which will not help your palate.

Yeah, aeration makes noise. You can learn (I think) to be pretty effective at it without being too loud. It's not worth a lot of time spent to do that, but if you're in a room of professionals whom you know are aerating, you will not hear really loud sounds.

rpm wrote:What you want is a sip small enough that when you first take it into your mouth it's only on the front 1/3 of your tongue or so (the "entry"), so you can discern the immediate flavors. You get a lot of aroma in that as well. Then I suck air in over the top of the bit of wine and spread it across my tongue and then let it fill my mouth to sample the middle palate for flavors, astringency, bitterness, viscosity (fullness), alcohol, etc. Then (if tasting seriously) I spit (swallow if not) most of the wine out, retaining only enough that it's just enough when I swallow that I can assess the length, smoothness, bitterness, etc. of the aftertaste ("finish").

So every time I try to "suck air in over the top of the bit of wine", I choke. I suspect this is like curling your tongue (which I also cannot do) and has something to do with the way I was born. But, in case it isn't, how does one suck in air without a) dribbling out bits of wine from the front of the mouth, or b) choking on the wine dribbling down the back of the mouth?

In any case, I made a concerted effort to slowly spread a small bit of wine across my tongue ... I was particularly surprised by how drastic the difference in tasting tannins was on the back tongue. The front and middle were quite pleasant and smooth with a lot of flavor; but on the back it was all tannin and quite sharp at that. If I were to rate the tannin level from 1 - 10 on each region, I give the front a 4, the mid a 2, and the back an 8.

jwhite6114 wrote:So every time I try to "suck air in over the top of the bit of wine", I choke. I suspect this is like curling your tongue (which I also cannot do) and has something to do with the way I was born. But, in case it isn't, how does one suck in air without a) dribbling out bits of wine from the front of the mouth, or b) choking on the wine dribbling down the back of the mouth?

In any case, I made a concerted effort to slowly spread a small bit of wine across my tongue ... I was particularly surprised by how drastic the difference in tasting tannins was on the back tongue. The front and middle were quite pleasant and smooth with a lot of flavor; but on the back it was all tannin and quite sharp at that. If I were to rate the tannin level from 1 - 10 on each region, I give the front a 4, the mid a 2, and the back an 8.

Hmmm. I'm sure I must have choked aerating once or twice as a kid before I got the hang of it, but I don't remember it. I don't even remember when I learned or whether it was my grandfather, father, or one of my oenologist great uncles who taught me the technique. It's hard to describe exactly how this works, but you are bringing in air through the wine over the tongue with your head down a bit (so it's uphill for anything to get to your throat) and while the tongue is in a position against your teeth that pretty much prevents most of the liquid getting past it. I think I may raise the tip of my tongue as well. If you have front dribble, I'd say you're probably taking too big a sip, it needs to be a small enough sip you can keep it in. Uebung macht den Meister as the Germans say.

Indeed, it is a revelation when you begin to taste with attention to how the wine behaves in different parts of your mouth. Almost every serious taster I have known measures tanins primarily in the back of the mouth/swallowing. Tannin typically shows least in the middle palate (though curiously, that's where most Merlots, which are usually lower in tannin, fall down, tasting "flat" or "flabby"), while if a wine is particularly tannic, the astringency will be detected right away at the front of your mouth.

rpm wrote:As to whole mouth feel, see my note above.

I think it is a mistake to sniff immediately after pulling the cork. I'll sniff the cork, but with an immediate sniff of the neck, you run the risk of getting a whiff of sulfer dioxide, which will not help your palate.

Yeah, aeration makes noise. You can learn (I think) to be pretty effective at it without being too loud. It's not worth a lot of time spent to do that, but if you're in a room of professionals whom you know are aerating, you will not hear really loud sounds.

Good advice... Thanks!

jwhite6114 wrote:So every time I try to "suck air in over the top of the bit of wine", I choke. I suspect this is like curling your tongue (which I also cannot do) and has something to do with the way I was born. But, in case it isn't, how does one suck in air without a) dribbling out bits of wine from the front of the mouth, or b) choking on the wine dribbling down the back of the mouth?

this is my amateur take on your question & how i learned to do this at an impromptu wine Burgundy tasting at my favorite wine store many moons ago.

first, take a small sip of wine. next, tilt your head down (*). then, pretend that you are about to put a straw up to your lips & part your lips just enough to accommodate this imaginary straw while simultaneously sucking in air through this imaginary straw VERY GENTLY. you should hear a very gentle gurgling sound & feel the wine "bubbling" at the front of your mouth. finally, close your mouth & either spread the wine throughout your mouth or repeat this "aeration" process.

(*) how far you tilt your head down should be a function of how much you need to use gravity in your favor & what works & feels right for you. if you have been having difficulty avoiding choking, start w/ as close to 90 degrees (looking down) as possible, slowly lifting your head to a less drastic angle over time until you find what works & feels right for you.

try this w/ a glass of water first & let me know if this works for you.

themostrighteous wrote:this is my amateur take on your question & how i learned to do this at an impromptu wine Burgundy tasting at my favorite wine store many moons ago.

first, take a small sip of wine. next, tilt your head down (*). then, pretend that you are about to put a straw up to your lips & part your lips just enough to accommodate this imaginary straw while simultaneously sucking in air through this imaginary straw VERY GENTLY. you should hear a very gentle gurgling sound & feel the wine "bubbling" at the front of your mouth. finally, close your mouth & either spread the wine throughout your mouth or repeat this "aeration" process.

(*) how far you tilt your head down should be a function of how much you need to use gravity in your favor & what works & feels right for you. if you have been having difficulty avoiding choking, start w/ as close to 90 degrees (looking down) as possible, slowly lifting your head to a less drastic angle over time until you find what works & feels right for you.

try this w/ a glass of water first & let me know if this works for you.

Thanks for the tips (RPM, too, though I did detect a note of teasing there ). I tried some of these tips last night and was able to get some bubble-action going without losing any wine. I did not get more than bubbles, though, so will continue to try to get it to move across my tongue with this technique. I was also not tasting much while I did this, so perhaps that is just a matter of concentration.

jwhite6114 wrote:Thanks for the tips (RPM, too, though I did detect a note of teasing there ). I tried some of these tips last night and was able to get some bubble-action going without losing any wine. I did not get more than bubbles, though, so will continue to try to get it to move across my tongue with this technique. I was also not tasting much while I did this, so perhaps that is just a matter of concentration.

Actually, I didn't mean to tease - it's just that it's been so long since I consciously thought about the technique, I was having trouble describing it, and I was trying to remember who taught me.

Here's a new book coming out a week from Monday.



The Battle for Wine and Love: or How I Saved the World from Parkerization
by Alice Feiring

NY Times reviews it here

smlauren wrote:Here's a new book coming out a week from Monday.



The Battle for Wine and Love: or How I Saved the World from Parkerization
by Alice Feiring

NY Times reviews it here

Thanks, I liked the review. I'll read the book

I took a bit of time to re-read all the posts, and wanted to thank everyone for their thoughtful posts.

I have decided to not aim to develop a professional palate, but I am going to make the effort to develop a more educated and sophisticated palate. I'd like to get the most bang for my wine buck, and one way to do that, (besides ordering from woot!), is to know more about what I'm buying, how it is likely to taste in general, what I should look for in particular when I am tasting, and be able to describe those aromas and tastes in terms that will enable others to have a clear idea of my experience. I want to enjoy my $10 bottle of wine, and enjoy my $30+ bottle of wine, in the proper context.

MM, I truly think wine tasting is a subjective palate, just as color & design, music, literatue, etc. are subjective. Can we all recognize and appreciate fine literature, art and music? Of course, I think we see the balance(ing) in effect; but is it to our taste? Not always.

An anecdote: I have a room in my house, totally decorated to my taste, most whims realized. Every time I walk into this room, I feel calm, a sensation of decompressing washes over me, and I am so pleased to be in this room, I cannot imagine anyone disliking this room. Guess what: this room is painted in what's called Douglas Fern, a fairly bright, NOT lime green, more of a grassy green. I have a few friends who detest green but funny enough, they all say, "usually I detest green, but this room is not so bad", or "it works", or "I like it", though they do not appreciate it on the level I do. To me this demonstrates that even though something is not to someone's taste, if it is done well, if it is in balance, it will be appreciated, if not desired.

sanity wrote:I took a bit of time to re-read all the posts, and wanted to thank everyone for their thoughtful posts.

I have decided to not aim to develop a professional palate, but I am going to make the effort to develop a more educated and sophisticated palate. I'd like to get the most bang for my wine buck, and one way to do that, (besides ordering from woot!), is to know more about what I'm buying, how it is likely to taste in general, what I should look for in particular when I am tasting, and be able to describe those aromas and tastes in terms that will enable others to have a clear idea of my experience. I want to enjoy my $10 bottle of wine, and enjoy my $30+ bottle of wine, in the proper context.

If I could figure out how to do it, I'd change the name of the thread from "how to develop a professional palate" to something like "how to develop the palate YOU want to have."

With the exception of SB and WD (and perhaps some of the winemakers who join in when their wines are on woot -- though, curiously, not all winemakers have sold professional palates), none of us here have professional palates -- I might have had something close to one 25-30 years ago when I was tasting anywhere from 20-50 wines a week, but I simply don't taste the 100+ wines a week that a true professional taster needs to taste in order to be current and to have accurate knowledge of a wide range of wines. I'll be honest: I enjoyed doing some serious tasting, but not enough to quit my day job as they say. I have friends who do maintain professional palates because they work in the industry -- for example an friend who imports Rhone, Burgundy and a bit of Bordeaux, and who spends a month every year in France tasting literally thousands of wines -- and I occasionally taste with them and am able to give my palate a proper workout. At that level, it is work, though.

What I wrote in my Notes on Wine in 1982 is still true: unless you want to be a professional or lay down significant wines for long aging -- the more or less traditional upper class approach was to buy quality red wines at release to begin drinking in 15-20 years (longer in extraordinary years) -- there is no reason to go for a professional level palate. If you do much cellaring, a high level palate (or advisors) is essential because there is so much money and risk involved.

On the other hand, and what I think is essential to make enjoying wine easier, what we mostly do here is EDUCATE our palates to help us do a better job of

1. learning what we like, by experimentation, and

2. learning to describe what we find going on in a wine.

The purpose of this education is to help you be able to communicate better with others, including someone from whom you may be buying wine, or who is otherwise recommending wine.

Beyond that, I think a side effect for many people -- usually once they've had an AHA!! experience or two -- is that they want to learn more and as they learn more, there is a tendency for one's palate to become more sophisticated over time and for one's tastes to change.

The change I typically see -- and this can be over a year or two, or over twenty years, everyone is different -- is a growing preference for drier white wines (except for Riesling, which is sought out for its particular floral characteristics and is best slightly off dry to very sweet) in most circumstances, a preference for more balanced wines rather than wines that are "showy", for drier red wines with more pronounced varietal character and balance, and for more careful matching of food and wine.

It's really a journey, and it should be a pleasurable journey. You can start anywhere along the way you find yourself, and you can stop anywhere for a while or as long as you like. The key is to enjoy the wines you drink as much as you want to, and to enjoy whatever learning you decide to do.

rpm wrote:
...edited by sanity... see above post for complete text

Beyond that, I think a side effect for many people -- usually once they've had an AHA!! experience or two -- is that they want to learn more and as they learn more, there is a tendency for one's palate to become more sophisticated over time and for one's tastes to change.

The change I typically see -- and this can be over a year or two, or over twenty years, everyone is different -- is a growing preference for drier white wines (except for Riesling, which is sought out for its particular floral characteristics and is best slightly off dry to very sweet) in most circumstances, a preference for more balanced wines rather than wines that are "showy", for drier red wines with more pronounced varietal character and balance, and for more careful matching of food and wine.

It's really a journey, and it should be a pleasurable journey. You can start anywhere along the way you find yourself, and you can stop anywhere for a while or as long as you like. The key is to enjoy the wines you drink as much as you want to, and to enjoy whatever learning you decide to do.

Thanks, for as usual, a thoughtful reply. I remember an early AHA!! moment, actually the first one that encouraged me on my path to more pleasurable wine experiences. (For those of you around in Orange County, CA in the 80's, remember Irvine Ranch Farmers' Market? A combination of Whole Foods on steroids, William's-Sonoma and a few other specialty shops rolled into one. Or how about buying fish from the dory fishermen, near Newport Pier...sorry, I digress...)

I was leaving my chosen profession to go off on a wild goose chase. As a decorator, I was so fortunate to have a small group of contractors who made me look good, job after job. I wanted to show my appreciation with a dinner made by me. I served leg of lamb roasted on a spit, several vegetable side dishes, homemade roasted garlic bread, and a beautiful chocolate desert. One of the wines I had chosen was a Far Niente CS, about 15 yrs old, for which I paid a fortune, since I didn't do the cellaring.

I no longer have the notes from that dinner, but I can still remember how the wine and food complemented each other, and I can remember how much everyone enjoyed the food and wine.

I do prefer drier reds and whites, and yes, having lived in Germany for a bit, I can really appreciate a properly done Riesling, and yes, a well balanced wine is what I strive to experience. Maybe using "balancing" as a verb here is more accurate; some wonderful wines have been balanced from the initial taste, but have changed over the course of the evening. Not better or worse, just different.

There is an interesting article in yesterday's The New York Times

Wine Pleasures: Are They All in Your Head?

I think this indirectly addresses the issues we have been discussing on this thread about different perceptions of wine, the education of palates, and where one stops along the journey.

Sorry for the delay - I changed the Subject of the thread to more closely match requests... Cool with everyone?

MaskedMarvel wrote:Sorry for the delay - I changed the Subject of the thread to more closely match requests... Cool with everyone?

I'd take out the word "Professional" and make it the " ... Palate YOU Want!"

smlauren wrote:Here's a new book coming out a week from Monday.

The Battle for Wine and Love: or How I Saved the World from Parkerization
by Alice Feiring

NY Times reviews it here

[x-posting apropos of this element of the topic of discussion of this thread]

tonight i had an AHA! moment of sorts. no, i didn't have a transcendental wine, but, yes, i had a true oenophilic revelation. so let me explain:

i opened a bottle of 2005 Château Beaulieu Comtes de Tastes (France, Bordeaux, Bordeaux Supérieur) at home, let it aerate for a couple of hours & poured myself a glass. after taking just a couple of sips, my D(est)W asked me to pick up our 10 year-old at a friend's house, whose father happens to be a very good friend of mine. upon arrival, my friend invites me to join him in a glass of 2002 Ojai Syrah Bien Nacido Vineyard (USA, California, Central Coast, Santa Maria Valley), which i gladly accept. i sniff, swirl, swish, taste & proceed to do a mental double-take. "What the hell?!?" i ask myself. "This wine is remarkably similar to the one i had 30 mins ago at home," i say to myself. "Can't be." i think nothing further of it, get back home 30 mins later, grab my still half-full glass, take another sip & (again) do a mental double-take. "Yep. They could be first cousins. No frakking way!!!"

"why" you may ask? both are very fruit-forward w/ more than a hint of RS (that dead giveaway "almost Port-like" descriptor) & yet (i) the first wine is a 2005 Bordeaux blend of 60% Merlot & 40% cab Franc & (ii) the second wine is a 2002 Central Coast 100% Syrah. DAH-YAMMM!!! well, it could have been a phenomenal coincidence OR an excellent example of the so-called International Wine Style (AKA the Homogenization of Wine) & the damage that its adoption has inflicted on the diversity & quality of wine the world over, i'll let others decide. for my money, it was both surreal & saddening at the same time, but YMMV.

NOTE: MM, please accept my apologies b/c i know that this doesn't quite fit the topic of discussion of this thread, but i thought my post might be of interest here and / or spark some more fitting discussion.

rpm wrote:There is an interesting article in yesterday's The New York Times

Wine Pleasures: Are They All in Your Head?

I think this indirectly addresses the issues we have been discussing on this thread about different perceptions of wine, the education of palates, and where one stops along the journey.

Robin's test is flawed. He has the test laid out in a 8page pdf. What he did was take away the top 10% and bottom 10% price point of wines to make sure there aren't weird variations, which left him at $5-16 wines. So the whole test is based on how people like 5-16 dollar wines.

Then he found out people liked $5 wines just a bit more than $16 wines. Wow! people liked all kinds of supermarket wines! weeee.

themostrighteous wrote:[x-posting apropos of this element of the topic of discussion of this thread]

tonight i had an AHA! moment of sorts. no, i didn't have a transcendental wine, but, yes, i had a true oenophilic revelation. so let me explain:
...(snipped)...
NOTE: MM, please accept my apologies b/c i know that this doesn't quite fit the topic of discussion of this thread, but i thought my post might be of interest here and / or spark some more fitting discussion.

TMR, I think this is a perfect post for this thread. What an astounding experience. Living here in Vegas, where it is so hot most of the time (today it was 91 in the shade in my neighborhood), we do drink more white wine (don't tell, but I do mix syrah with ice and lemon twists on occasion, especially with BBQ - awesome!)

I have found this same experience you describe, but with whites, especially unoaked chardonnay and SB. In fact the Rock Hollow chard is an example of this; it tastes like either many other unoaked chards OR many a simple SB's I've had. Not bad, just not distinguishable. The Windsor Sonoma chardonnay (from Woot in Nov. 2007) was like that, but better tasting. It was a very pleasant, enjoyable wine, but tasted like many orther unoaked Chards, or SB's.

great post, TMR, thanks.

sanity wrote:TMR, I think this is a perfect post for this thread. What an astounding experience. Living here in Vegas, where it is so hot most of the time (today it was 91 in the shade in my neighborhood), we do drink more white wine (don't tell, but I do mix syrah with ice and lemon twists on occasion, especially with BBQ - awesome!)

I have found this same experience you describe, but with whites, especially unoaked chardonnay and SB. In fact the Rock Hollow chard is an example of this; it tastes like either many other unoaked chards OR many a simple SB's I've had. Not bad, just not distinguishable. The Windsor Sonoma chardonnay (from Woot in Nov. 2007) was like that, but better tasting. It was a very pleasant, enjoyable wine, but tasted like many orther unoaked Chards, or SB's.

great post, TMR, thanks.

for something crisp and enjoyable i suggest loire valley sb's.

clayfu wrote:for something crisp and enjoyable i suggest loire valley sb's.

or Loire Valley chenin blancs...

a question for the wine experts & professionals alike that frequent this forum & this particular thread:

i recently came across the term audozing (alt spell: audouzing) in other wine-related boards (blasphemous though that may be). a little research yielded two writings (an article & a forum post) by French oenophile François Audouze after whom this method of wine "preparation" is apparently named by some. would y'all kindly opine on it, its legitimacy and / or its applicability, especially as compared to aerating in a decanter?

thanks (as always) in advance.

themostrighteous wrote:a question for the wine experts & professionals alike that frequent this forum & this particular thread:

i recently came across the term audozing (alt spell: audouzing) in other wine-related boards (blasphemous though that may be). a little research yielded two writings (an article & a forum post) by French oenophile François Audouze after whom this method of wine "preparation" is apparently named by some. would y'all kindly opine on it, its legitimacy and / or its applicability, especially as compared to aerating in a decanter?

thanks (as always) in advance.

I read both; TMR, thanks for the links. Very interesting. I rarely use a decanter, and when I open reds especially, I use Monsieur Audouze' method, though when I was told about this many years ago, I did not know the method was named after him. I usually drink 1 or 2 glasses of wine with dinner, so I save the partially consumed bottle for the next day. I used to decant, and noticed a huge difference in the taste of the wine the next day; it was usually better when I did not decant, even with "drink now" wines. If I know the entire bottle will be consumed in one sitting, I sometimes decant. When I know the bottle will be consumed over 2 days, I do not decant. I'm interested in what others comments about this, too.

edit: I did the math on the exchange rate for one of his dinners: 1 person for 1200 euro's = app. $1800!.. wow! Could I be a fly on the wall? I wouldn't each much, just a taste....

sanity wrote:I rarely use a decanter, and when I open reds especially, I use Monsieur Audouze' method, though when I was told about this many years ago, I did not know the method was named after him.

i get the sense from additional reading that i have done since i posted that he does not claim authorship of the method that many of us have certainly used for many years but rather that it has come to be known by his name in certain circles (apparently primarily in the US) as applied specifically to the handling of older wines v. aerating in a decanter.

themostrighteous wrote:a question for the wine experts & professionals alike that frequent this forum & this particular thread:

i recently came across the term audozing (alt spell: audouzing) in other wine-related boards (blasphemous though that may be). a little research yielded two writings (an article & a forum post) by French oenophile François Audouze after whom this method of wine "preparation" is apparently named by some. would y'all kindly opine on it, its legitimacy and / or its applicability, especially as compared to aerating in a decanter?

thanks (as always) in advance.

I think the standard Army answer to every non-obvious question applies: it depends on the situation.

If I know I want to drink a very young red wine that I think needs to breathe - i.e. a little oxidation, and I'm thinking about it, I'll open in anywhere from 8 to 1 hour ahead of time and serve it without decanting.

If I'm drinking a very young red wine on the spur of the moment, and it doesn't seem pretentious given the company/situation, I'll decant.

If I'm drinking an older red wine, I'll often decant to avoid sediment, but sometimes not with very old wines, which I'll open at the last minute and carefully pour. It's a judgment call, I just do what feels appropriate.

I know that's not real helpful, but over time, and with experience, you get a feel for which wines are better decanted and which not. Sometimes, the decision will be made at the time I open the bottle. I usually open an old wine 1/2 hour to 1 hour (depending on the wine's age and my previous experience with it) before I plan to serve it. I'll have a decanter at hand and will decide from the initial impression of the cork and the bouquet what to do next: put the cork back in (if it seems delicate and like it won't last), leave it open (if it seems not to need decanting and to be sturdy enough) or decant (if I think it will either improve the wine or I think there is significant sediment that really calls for decanting or, if I just feel like having the decanter on the table.)

rpm wrote:I think the standard Army answer to every non-obvious question applies: it depends on the situation.

If I know I want to drink a very young red wine that I think needs to breathe - i.e. a little oxidation, and I'm thinking about it, I'll open in anywhere from 8 to 1 hour ahead of time and serve it without decanting.

If I'm drinking a very young red wine on the spur of the moment, and it doesn't seem pretentious given the company/situation, I'll decant.

If I'm drinking an older red wine, I'll often decant to avoid sediment, but sometimes not with very old wines, which I'll open at the last minute and carefully pour. It's a judgment call, I just do what feels appropriate.

I know that's not real helpful, but over time, and with experience, you get a feel for which wines are better decanted and which not. Sometimes, the decision will be made at the time I open the bottle. I usually open an old wine 1/2 hour to 1 hour (depending on the wine's age and my previous experience with it) before I plan to serve it. I'll have a decanter at hand and will decide from the initial impression of the cork and the bouquet what to do next: put the cork back in (if it seems delicate and like it won't last), leave it open (if it seems not to need decanting and to be sturdy enough) or decant (if I think it will either improve the wine or I think there is significant sediment that really calls for decanting or, if I just feel like having the decanter on the table.)

thanks, rpm, that IS helpful. btw, wrt very young wines, you did mean aerate in a decanter, did you not?

themostrighteous wrote:thanks, rpm, that IS helpful. btw, wrt very young wines, you did mean aerate in a decanter, did you not?

Well, I suppose that's what I mean: I pour it into a decanter with some gusto in that case, but I don't think I do anything else special.

rpm wrote:Well, I suppose that's what I mean: I pour it into a decanter with some gusto in that case, but I don't think I do anything else special.

just having a little fun at your expense since you may recall that you taught me the difference between decanting & aerating in these very forums.

Holy carp, guys!! Great thread going on here!!! This is exactly the kind of information I have been looking for over the last 18 months! All of your insight has pushed a lot of the cloudiness away from what is important with wine tasting/enjoyment.

Keep it up....BTW, is there anyway to print this whole thread out in a semi-readable manner?

themostrighteous wrote:just having a little fun at your expense since you may recall that you taught me the difference between decanting & aerating in these very forums.

heh

This new study has already been mentioned in the Cycles Gladiator forum, but I thought it should be posted here as well -

Music 'can enhance wine taste'

I'll leave it to others to comment on the musical choices and recommendations made by the researchers.

yumitori wrote:This new study has already been mentioned in the Cycles Gladiator forum, but I thought it should be posted here as well -

Music 'can enhance wine taste'

I'll leave it to others to comment on the musical choices and recommendations made by the researchers.

iByron!!! we DEMAND a comment from you! PLEASE?!?

An article on what happens when you don't "play nice" with Mr. Parker

smlauren wrote:An article on what happens when you don't "play nice" with Mr. Parker

That is a fascinating article. I especially like the point about Edmunds harvesting earlier than many -- I'll bet he's harvesting much closer to the California traditional standard of 22-23.5 degrees brix than the guys who leave things on the vine much longer. I'll look for the wines.

rpm wrote:That is a fascinating article. I especially like the point about Edmunds harvesting earlier than many -- I'll bet he's harvesting much closer to the California traditional standard of 22-23.5 degrees brix than the guys who leave things on the vine much longer. I'll look for the wines.

I've been a fan since the 80's. On top of liking Steve's approach and his wines, I like him personally. He's a real nice, soft spoken but forthright, humble guy.

HitAnyKey42 wrote:I love your subject line! M'tinks sumbuddy wuz watchin some WLTV.

This is also a topic I'm very interested in as well, because I've been having an extremely hard time discerning aromas and tastes. Though I have a feeling that's also because a lot of the things people have used to describe wine, I haven't even really eaten/smelled the real thing much (if at all). After all I've never tasted or seen cassis, I don't even know what anise and a lot of those other herbs people talk about are, and most of the types of berries I can't discern between probably because I haven't eaten a diverse enough amount of them.
So I'm sure that's probably a big part of my problem with uncovering the intricacies of wine. I suppose what I'll most likely end up having to do is once a week or so find some jelly/jam jar or type of berry or other such thing that I've never had before (or not had much of) and just try a little bit.

There are two points that I would make on this particular subject. First, it IS good to go out and get some experience with some of the common aromas and flavors that are found in wine. Things like cassis or anise are easy to find in other foods, and it gives you a baseline of experience that you can use to compare with a particular wine.

Having said that, my second point is that, in my opinion, a lot of people focus too much on trying to detect a laundry list of obscure aromas in order to describe a wine. "This smells like the snails that lived under the rocks behind my grandmothers house when I was 12". First of all, nobody else in the world is going to know what that smelled like. Second, when I'm choosing a wine, do I really think to myself "I want something that tastes like raspberries, chocolate, with a little cinnamon and tar"? No, I'm usually thinking I want something rich, or bright, or smoky, or some other aspect of the wine that will make it right for the occasion. In my opinion, people pay too much attention to all of the individual flavors when tasting a wine, and not enough attention to the balance, the texture, and characteristics like whether a wine is sweet, bright, etc.

So, I've rambled on enough, but my main point is, it's good to have some experience with common aromas and flavors found in wine, but I think that some people spend too much time on that, and not enough on the other characteristics of a wine.

On RPM's suggestion, I'm a chapter or so into Emile Peynaud's The Taste Of Wine, and it is exactly the sort of stuff we're looking for. In fact, the issue of NOT describing wine only from a taste or smell perspective is addressed almost immediately. Very handy and detailed so far.

Since rpm brought it up this week, let's push this back to the top.

Interesting thread here. I'm particularly intrigued by the schism between the "pop, pour and enjoy" philosophy and the "savor and analyze" philosophy. The analogy to art and classical music is particularly, apt, I think.

From my perspective the bottom line is that if you're going to buy more expensive wine, you're wasting your money if you can't describe the wine with some suitable lexicon. Fruit and vanilla wines that run in the $15 - $20 rage are wonderfully hedonistic and enjoyable. It's in a consumer's interest to realize a fruit and vanilla wine that costs $40 - $60 is providing virtually the same experience because the typicity of the varietal have been wiped out by ripeness and new oak. If a consumer can't appreciate nuance, then a wine expressing its terroir with more subtle components will have no value to him or her.

It's like the difference between a movie score and Beethoven's 3rd symphony. A movie score is typically immediately approachable but generally lacks musical development. Beethoven's Eroica certainly has its moments a sheer exhilaration, but it takes time and effort to catch the counterpoint and logical structure (unless you're a trained professional). If all you want are melodies, though, buy a soundtrack for $10 because you'll be bored for 2 hours after spending $25 on your symphony ticket.

I suppose my feeling is that if all you want is to enjoy wine, you can find immediately accessible wine in the $10-$15. Even at Woot's low prices, it's a waste of money to approach many of the boutique wines as a purely a means to pleasure.

bump to the top

rpm wrote:bump to the top

there you are...