just wine points.com

I believe this is the direct descendant of the defunct Wine X, a short-lived site that attempted unsuccessfully to do what Gary Vaynerchuk does very well: Reach out to a younger generation and excite them about wine by speaking their language.

Gary is sincere. These folks ... not so much.

Robin, what happened to the Gary links you put out? Guess we just register there on his site?

Hoke, Hi.....

We are not in disagreement, but is there anything more evocative (except perhaps on a personal basis) about fresh forest floor as compared to wild berries, eucalyptus, tar, or even (forgive me, please) blackcurrants? The meaning of a tasting note is as personal to the reader as it is to the person who wrote it.

And let us never forget the aroma of that now well-known madeleine that gave birth to one of the world's great literary works.

Best
Rogov

If forced to choose I would rather have notes than scores.

I am with you Matt but then even there we might be in trouble as palate and wine experience might differ? I am getting sick of "people" telling me such and such a wine got 90 points. Show me the flipping tasting note and let me make up my own opinion! Better still, open the bottle and lets see (grin).

Yep, I'm another in the camp of notes over scores. Of course (as Mark alludes to) there are good, poor or indifferent tasting notes, even within the constraint that there isn't (nor ever will be) such a thing as a perfect tasting note. Just listing flavours gives some idea of complexity, but there does need to be more to assist - how is the balance of fruit, acid, tannins? Is it tight/open? What are the most striking features and what is there more subtly? ... and so on.

I don't give scores, partly as I'm fairly disillusioned with the points scales and use/mis-use of scores. Also though I have no confidence or indeed care for being consistent in rating the experience. I hope my notes give a view as to whether I enjoyed the wine (and why), but would be happy to elaborate if it seems unsure.

If (say) a wine comes up at auction, that seems interesting and a potential bargain, but that I've not got personal experience with, then I do seek out notes (and not ignoring scores) off the internet / book sources at home. The scores and drinking windows do come into it, but the context of the note is crucial. If someone is raving about a 98 point wine for it's lush, plush fruit, hedonistic style and lack of tannins / acidity, then I know which of the note and score will register most strongly with me. This is clearly an extreme example and there are instances where the wine (and note) is more typical, which is where a good score may differentiate a wine in a way the writer of the note has been unable to get across clearly.

regards

Ian

Hoke I don't disagree with everything you say, but I challenge anyone to taste two wines and tell me which one tastes like "forest floor" and which one tastes like "earth", "peat", "moss", "dirt" etc.

What does "crushed stone" taste like and how is it different from a whole stone? What is sandalwood and what does that taste like? How is "beet root" different than "beet" and is that really a flavor in a wine? These are all descriptions from the recent WA. Here are some more: White pepper tinged black fruits, lilly of the valley, bark, rhubarb, scrubby herbs, acacia, pepper cress, apple pit, beef juices... and that's all just from one page.

Maybe I'm just showing my own ignorance and lack of palate, but I find notes like this tiresome. I don't need to know if it's "rose", "rose petal", or "rose water". I can't really make that distinction in a wine. Notes are crucial, but grocery lists are silly. To me it just gets pretentious. And it's a very different thing from light hearted descriptions like "tastes like watching a Marilyn Monroe movie for the first time".

Whew, I was getting worried, it was a couple of weeks since we had a "points suck" thread!\

Personally I have nothing against points per se. What I have a problem with is the idea that points (or grades, or stars) have any validity beyond "this is what I thought of this bottle at this time." I list grades (which are just points wearing a different dress), but all they tell you is that I liked this bottle better than that bottle on that night. The idea that because someone else gave this bottle 91 and that bottle 94 and it's supposed to have quantitive meaning to me is what I disagree with. I have no problem with the same wine scoring 79 and 91, different bottles judged by different people. Carnival of Love can get 99 from Parker, B- from me, and 45 (on a 50-100) scale from Gilman, makes total sense to me.

I find some people's descriptors and notes more valuable than others. I like some that approach flowery in their prose, and some that are more terse. What really matters to me is how much I have been able to identify with those tasters.

Matt, while lists can get long and overprecise, people are just trying to describe their personal associations. Me, I like "forest floor" as a descriptor. It's evocative of dirt, yes, but also decaying leaves, moss, etc. I'd say it's actually fairly distinct. I'll add "sappy" in a Burgundy is a big plus for me. Hope you'll still drink with me!

I suppose you're right, "forest floor" is not really bad on it's own. In a list of 12-15 descriptions...

Anyone who still gets WA, turn to page 70 in issue 184. Start reading and you will see what it is that I object to. Schildknecht really goes too far.


Here is a randomly selected example:

nose of gorse, fennel, rosemary, dark chocolate and game; through an expansive, finely-tannic, refreshingly tart-berried and saline palate to a finish of smoked meat, bitter herbs, and walnut husk.

I find about half of that useful and the rest pretentious.

Again, maybe that just means I have no taste buds. I find it hard to believe that he's writing to be understood by the reader. Gorse? Walnut husk?

Sorry to be so irritated on this tangent subject. I was actually just reading my WA yesterday and got really fed up and just found that I couldn't read it. I know the goal of the writer is not to cause a reader to give up in frustration while reading the notes. I don't know why they have to be so absurdly overly written with so many obscure descriptives.

Oops. Button got pushed, huh, Matt?

Don't get me wrong: I believe as you do, that many writers do get pretentious and go too far to slather descriptors on a wine. That's the nature of writers though. They want to make sure you get the point; and they want to do it "artfully" (or what they think is artful).

But that's no different from winemakers who do the same over-excess to wines, and manipulate and jamjar them to death!

I like Schildknecht's writing. Obviously, you don't. I find his descriptors evocative. Then again, I'm not (or I like to think I'm not) the "Average Joe" of wine drinkers either; I can certainly see some of his descriptive embellishments both confusing and exasperating certain readers. Like wine, we all have different tastes in wine critics.

I dare say many of the specific citations you pointed out would be relished (pardon the weak pun) by the FLDG people in Robin's palace of many rooms. Many of them speak to me very clearly. And yes, some do not. And yes, some go too far out of the realm of standard knowledge or interest.

Sandalwood? I know very well what that scent is. I expect you've been exposed to it in your life; you just chose to not pay attention or "register" it in your sense memory. But it's pretty common, if only in cheap candles. The difference between beet and beet root? That can be pretty profound---but yes, only if you eat a lot of beets (or, in my case, if you generally despise beets because of a childhood-developed aversion).

White pepper tinged black fruits? No problem there. That's just a slightly dressy version of a standard descriptor of a certain type of wine. Rhubard? I know what that is. Haven't you ever smelled/tasted rhubarb? If not, you should. To me it's like saying cranberry: I can relate to it easily. Lilly of the valley? Again, no problem, and a descriptor I have been known to use for certain wines. Beef juices? Yup. I'll admit to one of my blind spots though: acacia. For some reason that's not cemented into my sense memory very clearly, and I don't find it to be a trigger word.

But everyone is different. Hey, maybe you don't have any taste, Matt!

(I don't think that, by the way; not at all. And I do think you have grounds for complaint. Some of the more flowery writers should exercise a little restraint. Some of the poorer writers should just stop. I think Schildknecht is very definitely NOT a poor writer: I think he's a great writer who gets so damned enthusiastic at times that, yes, he can go 'over the top'. I can forgive him that.

Hoke
A guy (Craig - I can't recall his surname, Sue will know) in New Zealand runs a website (Kiwi Wine Fan Club) where the points are awarded on a 109 point scale, so he's even further up the evolutionary ladder in points awarding.

Maybe Nigel Tufnel can start a second career as a wine critic whose point scale goes up to 111.

-Paul W.

The difference between beet and beet root? That can be pretty profound---but yes, only if you eat a lot of beets (or, in my case, if you generally despise beets because of a childhood-developed aversion).
.

While I'm with you on sandalwood and several others, you make a distinction between beet and beetroot? What, pray tell? As a fairly major beet devourer, I'd assume the distinction is only to vary one's writing.

Personally I don't mind many descriptors (although I've got NO idea what gorse is), as long as the taster gives some clues to body, structure, acids, balance, etc.

Beet: root; leaves

Turnip: root; leaves

Cilantro/ coriander: same plant, different parts; significantly different

There's a vast difference between between beet root and beet leaves. With turnips, there's a vast difference between root and leaves, and an even greater difference in how the turnips are prepared, Dale.

Not even getting into the different types of beets (of which there are several.)

Ok, I get it, though we Southerners tend to say "beet" (as synonymous with "beetroot") and "beet greens", "turnips" (meaning root) and "turnip greens" - I've never heard of anyone (anywhere) saying beet or turnip without a qualifier and meaning the leaves.

you make a distinction between beet and beetroot? What, pray tell? As a fairly major beet devourer, I'd assume the distinction is only to vary one's writing..

In my experience, beet is the American term and beetroot is the British term. But Hoke clearly has a more complex experience!

[David M. Bueker]

My favorite Schildknecht descriptor is "buddleia" (aka Butterfly Bush). It's about as esoteric as you are going to get.

The funniest term I have heard used (and to be fair it was in jest) was from Terry Theise: "geese farts on a muggy day." Sounds like Sierra Carche.

you make a distinction between beet and beetroot? What, pray tell? As a fairly major beet devourer, I'd assume the distinction is only to vary one's writing..

In my experience, beet is the American term and beetroot is the British term. But Hoke clearly has a more complex experience!

So we'll have to say 1. Beet/beetroot 2. Beet greens

Then there's pickled beets and fresh beet/beetroot. That's one hell of a difference!

And as I said, we're not even getting into the various and sundry types of beets, and I've had several, each one different.

So we'll have to say 1. Beet/beetroot 2. Beet greens

Sounds like my usage, so it must be right!

And as I said, we're not even getting into the various and sundry types of beets, and I've had several, each one different.

Of course! No one is denying the delicious diversity of vegetables and fruits. Certainly not me. But the utility of putting them in tasting notes is another thing.

I must say that in recent years I haven't really felt the need to describe wine with very specific fruit and vegetable types. Other people are of course free to do as they wish. Sometimes it seems a bit too specific, especially when people take their descriptions too seriously. But other times I agree with Hoke that part of the revelry and spiritual inspiration of wine is a big part of what makes it so interesting.

I think there should be a ten-point scale, with 10 being the top score. But if there is truly a wine that is better than the rest, then that one will be rated eleven - one better. In fact, I have a special row on my wine rack with wines rated 11. When people ask me about them, I say "These go to eleven".

An aside. Adding a CT tasting note in this evening, the Tasting notes of Cellartracker user 'Eastover' made me smile.

Their notes on the same wine advise that:
- Jess won MVP at the field hockey tournament
- Ben went to football practice for the all-star game
- John and Lee came over to watch France vs. Italy in the world cup final (Italy won 5-3 on penalties)
- Ben has had his Bar Mitzvah

Certainly beats all this undergrowth rubbish

regards

Ian

I have no doubt that we can all distinguish between oranges and seville oranges (whatever they are). Between shrimp and shrimp shell. Between iris, lily, and narcissus. Between lemon, lemon zest, and lemon pit. However I know that were I to detect this in a wine, I would not be able to accurately distinguish which one the wine resembled. If anyone can, I challenge them to taste the same wines the next day and repeat which one tastes like crushed stone and which one tastes like wet stone (once it goes in your mouth, aren't they all going to get wet?).

I understand the beauty of poetic writing and appreciate the image that describing "iris" evokes. But if the next day the same wine evokes "lily" then what's the point? Just call it "floral".

If anyone can indeed consistently distinguish iris from lily in wine served to them blind then I humbly bow at their super-taster feet. Otherwise I prefer more real, less cluttered notes.

I have no doubt that we can all distinguish between oranges and seville oranges...

I assume you mean that we can all distinguish between navel oranges and seville oranges..

Which is not hard at all as seville oranges are extremely tart.

But Matt, you use coffee and espresso, are you saying you can identify the difference in wine blind? Candied cherry, black cherry, just cherry? Rose petals vs floral? (you're a "favorite taster" of mine on CT so it ws easy to scan your notes).

To me folks are just trying to describe the (somewhat) undescribable through association. Everyone's associations are different. It bothers me not at all that some folks get black fruit from a wine I get red fruit from. But with time and tasting enough of the same wines, I get a sense of the wine from the notes of those I've learned to pay attention to. Doesn't mean I get licorice when they do.

Jumping in for a moment here to suggest a test, not with wine but with other items that give off distinct aromas and/or flavors.

Try, for example, any or all the following tastings and scentings, ideally blindfolded or in a perfectly dark room:

Black cherries, red cherries, Maraschino cherries
Basil, taragon, sage
American style coffee (percolated or drip), espresso coffee
Plain granulated sugar, demarara sugar
Eucalyptus drops, licorice drops
Gun metal, tin, pewter, sterling silver
Marble, garden stones

Ideally, to have a helper to keep people from poking each others' eyes out, and to do the same tasting with half a dozen wine-tasting friends. I'll bet you a nickel that concordance will be quite high.

Best
Rogov

Touche, Dale.

Yes, I think I can distinguish coffee from espresso consistently enough. Any evidence for or against that in my notes of repeat wines? Candied and black cherry seem pretty different. Rose petals vs. floral I'll give you. If that's all you found among my 762 CT notes then I think I'm doing pretty good.

It's a far cry from "herbal scrub", "clean, raw, red meat", "rare, grilled meat", "citrus oils", "resinous shrubs", "sea breeze", "tonka nut", "melon rind", "shrimp shell reduction", "cyanic apple pip", "candied lemon rind", "heliotrople", "acacia", "tiny grilled finned fishes", "cherry pit", "peach kernel", "bacon-rind", "Persian melon", "carnations", "juniper", "peony", "rowan", "herb tinged cherries", and "machine oil"

Personally I don't mind many descriptors (although I've got NO idea what gorse is)

From wikipedia:

Gorse, furze, furse or whin (Ulex) is a genus of about 20 species of spiny evergreen shrubs in the subfamily Faboideae of the pea family Fabaceae, native to western Europe and northwest Africa, with the majority of species in Iberia.

There. Now you know.