Do you give any credence to tasting notes

[vedder50]

Personally, I don't get why people waste time with them. It's such a marketing ploy for the industry folk that come up with them, but the for the everyday punter thinking they are Johnny Tastebuds I find it amusing. Snobs will say otherwise. Take any wine and read reviews, one guys tastes blueberries, chestnuts, and lime peel while the next cab off the rank tastes egg shells, sewer drain, and raccoon fur.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Personally, I don't get why people waste time with them. It's such a marketing ploy for the industry folk that come up with them, but the for the everyday punter thinking they are Johnny Tastebuds I find it amusing. Snobs will say otherwise. Take any wine and read reviews, one guys tastes blueberries, chestnuts, and lime peel while the next cab off the rank tastes egg shells, sewer drain, and raccoon fur.

A lot of wine used to be under cork, and would develop very differently based on storage and cork quality.
30 years ago, wine making was far less scientific than it is today.
- So I would take any descriptions of wine >10 years, and wine under cork with a dose of salt.

Some people have better taste buds than others
Some people have drunk a lot more of <insert particular wine here> vs. <insert other wine here> so they are better able to describe Wine #1, but probably don't do as good a job at describing Wine #2
- So you need to look into who's writing the review

We all have personal biases and preferences: one person describes a car/building/bridge/art as having "flowing lines that connect with the surrounding zeitgeist" and the next person describes it as "limp lettuce". One person like Beethoven, and the next likes ABBA, and the next likes Snoop Dog.
I say be glad for differences in opinion. If we all loved all wine in equal measure, then the best wine would cost $100m/bottle.

Whilst I don't have the scenory depth to write the sort of detailed flavours other do, I can pick all the major grape varieties (so, at the very least Sauv Blanc tastes different to Chardonnay to Riesling to Semillon for example), plus it should be relatively easy to pick up tannins, and also to pick up how long flavour lasts in your mouth. Other major distinctions, like sour vs. sweet should also be relatively straightforward. It can help if you open a bunch of a particular grape in a row to see the differences. A Rhone Syrah is going to taste very different to a Barossa Shiraz.

So, you can ignore all the BS in wine notes - just look for the really high-level descriptions that you can tease out from the details. That's been my approach anyway. After drinking more and more wine (probably too much), I'm beginning to take more time to try to analyze what makes Wine #1 different to Wine #2. I'm handicapped by hayfever that seems to strike at the most inopportune times, but by spending more time thinking about what I'm tasting rather than just drinking, I'm starting to appreciate more subtle differences (or maybe I'm just becoming a snob!). At the same time, I read the stories of judges unable to give the same score to the same wine etc. so I try to retain a healthy dose of skepticism.

Last edit: I'm assuming you're talking about winery or "pro taster" notes (Halliday, Parker etc.). IMHO one should go with the law of large numbers, and read reviews from CellarTracker (or Vivino) etc. For popular wines there'll be 50-100+ reviews, and statistics tells us that should give you a prediction with a reasonably tight confidence interval

 

[Dr Ralph]

You make some good points vedder50

 

[vedder50]

I wasn't looking for coaching tips, but your post essentially backs up my thoughts. Exactly - primary tastes are quite evident, e.g. spagbol vs fettuccine alfredo. And with that, I'd hope anyone can tell good from bad, but everyone has their own preferences. It's comical though when punters try out the tasting notes gig and fail miserably.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Vedder50 - I think we're in agreement. To clarify I wasn't intending to 'school' you, but rather put down my opinions for anyone else reading this thread that might be looking for advice.

Certainly there are some detailed reviews in the Nice Wines Thread from the likes of Delectable Blue, Wozza etc that I think are worth reading as I know they take the time and make the effort to try to pull apart and distill down a wine to its essence. I don't have the patience or the depth of perception.

 

[burmans]

Personally, I don't get why people waste time with them. It's such a marketing ploy for the industry folk that come up with them, but the for the everyday punter thinking they are Johnny Tastebuds I find it amusing. Snobs will say otherwise. Take any wine and read reviews, one guys tastes blueberries, chestnuts, and lime peel while the next cab off the rank tastes egg shells, sewer drain, and raccoon fur.

Well I guess my question to you would be how do you choose your wine? Yes you need to be very discerning in who you choose and find someone who has similar tastes to you but frankly I'm never going to have the opportunity to taste the 10's of thousands of different wines produced every year in Australia, let alone the world.

So yes I do read some reviews and I ignore a whole bunch too. I like to think also I'm smart enough not to read the reviews of those who are employed by the winery industry and if I find any tester off the mark I stop reading their reviews. That doesn't mean reviews per se are bad, it means bad reviews are bad. But isn't that blindingly obvious, listen to the people who know what they are talking about, don't listen to those who don't?

 

[Wozza]

I find the tasting notes really helpful when choosing how I spend my limited budget on the inordinate number of wine options before me. I don't make any purchase without reviewing the expert reviews, the vintage notes of the winery, the marketing blurb of the vendor selling it, the marketing blurb of other vendors selling it, the Vivino reviews, the CellarTracker reviews, the opinions of friends who love their wine, including those on here, and of anything else that happens to come up on the Google search first three pages. I'd agree with the comments above - you tease out what you want and gain an overall picture of a wine from all that information. It usually takes just 10 minutes. And avoids having my expectations dashed. And, most importantly, it hopefully avoids leaving me with a whole bunch of wine that I don't really want to drink.

Some war stories that led me to this more considered approach - I made some rash buying decisions last year that are still sitting on the Spag Bol shelf! I've probably got around 30 - 50 wines that I am indifferent about. Not only that, I have made some buys purely on reputation - I'm thinking the Parker First Growth 2008. That's a wine with a tremendous pedigree. But one that in recent years does not live up to the standards of its forebearers. If I'd done some homework, I would not have jumped on the 12 that I did. Others have had similar experiences with the Grand Merlot 2006.

Most of the wine I buy now is for long term cellaring. I learnt that from the likes of AnonymousCoward and Dr Ralph. I would be thoughtless and slapdash taking 10-15 year wine buying propositions without doing that kind of research.

I am curious, vedder50. How are you making your wine buying decisions if you are not considering the expert tasting notes or the marketing blurb of the industry?

As for Johnny Tastebuds - that would totally be me! I don't mind the tag, nor that many will choose to ignore the musings I write. I have loved the journey I have gone on, learning and discovering what makes a wine good for me. I love teasing a wine apart. I love researching it. And I love writing about it. And above all, I love doing that with great friends, swapping personal opinions and enjoying wine together. It evokes so much more than just drinking the wine for pleasures sake. It's what many of the great wines and winemakers deserve. For me, wine is not an instrument to get drunk or to satiate your appitite.

I tend to spend a good two hours with a wine over two days, finding out about its structure and taste, smell and texture profile. I usually write my initial note within the first 20 minutes. But then I tend to sit on that note, making important adjustments where something really should be emphasised more. I usually sit on the draft note for another day just in case my first impressions need tweaking and to spend some time reading up on the winemakers vintage notes and all of the other notes mentioned above. That's usually the second time I have done that full information review (first before purchase. Second before I post my note). Once done, I then add some general info about the wine and winery to the note, as I personally find reading these really helpful. It's part of the wine's story, so I don't think it should be left out. I then hone all that down into the 500 characters you get (on Vivino), dropping stuff that's less important to emphasise (colour is often dropped, unless it really says something about the wine). That's the kind of effort I go to, to ensure my Johnny Tastebuds review is of some use to those that choose to read them.

You are absolutely right about the descriptors - they are very subjective. But they do give you some handy pointers to how the wine tastes though. For instance, Robert Parker Jnr often uses the scorched earth reference. Whereas Hooke would use spiced box. And Halliday would say cigar box. I know what they are saying and what that means for me. Personally, I like the fact each person describes a wine differently. Studying them in a considered way does help you discern what the experts mean.

I welcome your views, vedder50. And enjoy your postings. Hopefully one day we'll meet over a good bottle of wine to discuss these issues in person. Enjoy the (long) weekend.

 

[drron]

I am one who really only reads tasting notes to have a bit of a laugh.I did buy wines to cellar.I would only buy wines I had tasted.I have passed the test of time.however I really am unable to tell you what I am looking for.I taste and think this one is worthwhile cellaring.They don't have to be expensive wines.
I was a member of a wine club when I lived in the Hunter Valley.In the last few years I was asked to present the blind tastings and not to take part in the options game.It was still impossible for me to describe the tastes in ways that others understood but I could get the wine variety,place of origin and age and sometimes the maker.It was mostly memory.

 

[Daver6]

I think you are missing the point of tasting notes then. How else can one convey what a wine is like without using them? How could you converse with a sommelier at a restaurant to help decide what wine you might like?

One person might use the term earthiness while another uses forest floor. As long as you know the association between them, a lot can be conveyed about a wine.

I give much more credence to tasting notes than point scores.

 

[Radiq]

I think you are missing the point of tasting notes then. How else can one convey what a wine is like without using them? How could you converse with a sommelier at a restaurant to help decide what wine you might like?

One person might use the term earthiness while another uses forest floor. As long as you know the association between them, a lot can be conveyed about a wine.

I give much more credence to tasting notes than point scores.

This is pretty much spot on. It seems like Vedder50 should have more issues with point scores than tasting notes. I don't see how someone saying a wine has tobacco notes or smells of green apple skin etc. is marketing? It is them describing what they can pick up in the wine.

Point scores on the other hand are marketing gold for wineries to sell their product.

Very rarely will I buy a wine without reading a tasting note because there are certain terms that I know put me off a wine straight away and vice versa. This becomes really apparent when I'm served a wine I don't like and straight away I can pick the notes, then go online and check them and find I was right. I'm horrible when it comes to tastings except for the aspects I really hate and the ones I really love so I don't bother posting tasting notes, I leave that for the people who's palates are far more attuned.

I would like to see if tasting notes (not scores) have become more consistent between reviewers as we have swapped over to screwcaps. Less Cork variance should in theory have aligned most tasters notes.

 

[drron]

If I had believed tasting notes and expert opinion then there are wines I would not have bought which I have subsequently enjoyed.The one easiest to remember is Lindeman's Steven hermitage as it was in 1986.Ten years later I presented it as a blind tasting at which the winemaker was present.He did not pick it and when presented with the dates after knowing it was a Stevens said it could not be 1986 as it was a very poor year.When revealed he thanked me for showing him that he was a better winemaker than he thought.
What I would recommend if you are serious about wine is to join a wine club or society which has regular tastings as that way you do get to taste a much greater selection of wines that are usually good.

 

[vedder50]

I probably wasn't clear enough to the context I was referring to. There is clearly value in general tasting notes to help to identify styles of wine an individual likes (e.g. is it dry, sweet, peppery, red/black fruit, young, long finish, oaked, etc etc etc). What I'm referring to are the abundance of notes these days that add no value and try way too hard, the "This ruby rich delight is packed with mouth-watering sumptuousness with hints of bramble, blackberry, unripe boysenberry, blueberry with underlying tones of lavender and bouquets of morning dew." Rephrased - it tastes like black and blue fruit.

I suppose the prompt for the post was I caught some clown at a restaurant last night trying to impress a chick with his "notes", and her reaction was priceless (called him a tool and left...hahahaha).

 

[Radiq]

I probably wasn't clear enough to the context I was referring to. There is clearly value in general tasting notes to help to identify styles of wine an individual likes (e.g. is it dry, sweet, peppery, red/black fruit, young, long finish, oaked, etc etc etc). What I'm referring to are the abundance of notes these days that add no value and try way too hard, the "This ruby rich delight is packed with mouth-watering sumptuousness with hints of bramble, blackberry, unripe boysenberry, blueberry with underlying tones of lavender and bouquets of morning dew." Rephrased - it tastes like black and blue fruit.

I suppose the prompt for the post was I caught some clown at a restaurant last night trying to impress a chick with his "notes", and her reaction was priceless (called him a tool and left...hahahaha).

So your issue is with people who make notes in a grandiloquent style. I don't think many people here would disagree with you then.
I'm always amazed when watching stuff like Somm with how many notes those guys can pick up. They just fire them away though, with no ridiculous comparisons to the sunset viewed from Stalin's bedroom window or things of that style which is what I believe you are complaining about?

 

[Daver6]

I probably wasn't clear enough to the context I was referring to. There is clearly value in general tasting notes to help to identify styles of wine an individual likes (e.g. is it dry, sweet, peppery, red/black fruit, young, long finish, oaked, etc etc etc). What I'm referring to are the abundance of notes these days that add no value and try way too hard, the "This ruby rich delight is packed with mouth-watering sumptuousness with hints of bramble, blackberry, unripe boysenberry, blueberry with underlying tones of lavender and bouquets of morning dew." Rephrased - it tastes like black and blue fruit.

The first part of your example conveys nothing and wholeheartedly agree with you. The difference between saying just "it tastes like black and blue fruit" and "hints of bramble, blackberry, unripe boysenberry, blueberry with underlying tones of lavender and bouquets of morning dew" is that the latter conveys a much more complex wine.

 

[Piker]

I probably wasn't clear enough to the context I was referring to. There is clearly value in general tasting notes to help to identify styles of wine an individual likes (e.g. is it dry, sweet, peppery, red/black fruit, young, long finish, oaked, etc etc etc). What I'm referring to are the abundance of notes these days that add no value and try way too hard, the "This ruby rich delight is packed with mouth-watering sumptuousness with hints of bramble, blackberry, unripe boysenberry, blueberry with underlying tones of lavender and bouquets of morning dew." Rephrased - it tastes like black and blue fruit.

Vedder, I imagine that these guys are 'superior tasters' and I look for their added nuances. I often don't find them or find other aspects. But sometimes I think they are marketers and the experience may be quite different and negative compared to their suggestions!

I enjoy the chase and as AC says the statistical weight of different opinions helps me to find the wine styles I like.

 

[Skyring]

With tasting notes, YMMV. Some are fluffery, some are technical. If the writer is also the seller, then there may be aftertones of salt.

But those with good noses (and palates) can pick up a lot from good tasting notes. My wife, for example, who has far superior perception than I in these things.

A point to note. Just because the notes might say (say) "mango, sour apples, old tobacco" doesn't mean the drink will taste like those things juiced up and mixed together. It means that the compound that gives mango the taste that characterises it from another fruit is present. We're talking about the esters and chemical compounds here.

It's because with taste and smell we really have no precise language to describe the perception. With vision, we can talk colour, wavelength, shape, contrast and so on. With sound, it's frequency, harmony, character. We know a human voice from a dog's bark, a bugle from a jet plane. With wines and whiskies, there are few solid measures we can rely upon. Alcohol strength, peatiness - that's about it for firm numbers. We have to fall back on associations with other tastes and smells.

Even then, that's a very wibbly-wobbly way to paint the picture. We all have likes and dislikes, cultural backgrounds, personal experiences, that distort our perceptions. I'm reading Mary Roach's latest book, and she talks about how the Allies tried to make stink bombs to annoy their enemies. They discovered that odours that smelt offensive to American noses did not necessarily have the same effect on Japanese, who had experienced a far different diet and lifestyle since birth. On a commercial level, a product intended to smell of vomit to dissuade dieters from opening their fridge was liked by some so much they rated it as a perfume they would wear!

As I said, your mileage may vary (or, you make me vomit). Consider who is writing the tasting notes and adjust expectations accordingly. What's written on the label of a five dollar chardy will have less gravitas and authority than what James Halliday has to say.

And there's no better recommendation than yourself. Find something you like, you'll probably like the second glass, the second bottle, the second carton.