just wine points.com

Matt,
I don't know which wines you tasted more than once, and probably won't chart a thousand wines. I'll just say if you can consistently identify aromas that you call coffee vs espresso blind in wine, you're a far better taster than I am. I taste blind a lot (both of my Westchester groups always taste blind), and if I write coffee on a wine I previously noted as having espresso, for me that is a sign of consistency- I feel good! It doesn't mean I regard them as the same, just that they are the same family. I'm happy if I'm in same ballpark. When I write an association that I made, I write what I think, but it doesn't mean that next time I might not think "blackcurrant" vs "creme de cassis", or "lime" vs "lemon."

Pretty much everyone occasionally uses something that I can't associate with. If a critic or amateur taster constantly used "tonka nut", "cyanic apple pip", "heliotrople", "acacia", "tiny grilled finned fishes", "carnations", "rowan", and "gorse" I'd probably stop reading them because their associations were foreign to me. But that doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that they are just being fanciful. If I find an aroma in Champagne that reminds me of Parker House rolls, can't I say that rather than "bread"? Might not mean anything to many, but I'm being honest.

That said, I think plenty of TN writers (inc some pros) are full of ....

I don't know which wines you tasted more than once, and probably won't chart a thousand wines. I'll just say if you can consistently identify aromas that you call coffee vs espresso blind in wine, you're a far better taster than I am. I taste blind a lot (both of my Westchester groups always taste blind), and if I write coffee on a wine I previously noted as having espresso, for me that is a sign of consistency- I feel good! It doesn't mean I regard them as the same, just that they are the same family. I'm happy if I'm in same ballpark. When I write an association that I made, I write what I think, but it doesn't mean that next time I might not think "blackcurrant" vs "creme de cassis", or "lime" vs "lemon."

Totally agree. I didn't mean to say that I'd call coffee vs espresso with 100% consistency. To extend the metaphor, I believe what the taster in question is doing is not only distinguishing coffee from espresso, but distinguishing the type of bean, country of origin, depth of roast etc. To say "lemon" one day and "lime" the next I think is to be expected. That's the whole point. To say "Tahitian lime" is to convey a sense of accuracy that I just don't believe is possible, even among the best tasters.

I am not advocating sterile notes reduced to a short list of acceptable descriptives. What I am saying is that I think he is taking the fine distinction to comical levels, even to the point of using flavors of things that aren't even edible. Furthermore I think that for example by using "tonka nut" instead of "vanilla bean" (for which it is a frequent substitute) he is being not only showy, but unnecessarily confusing to the lay reader.



PS I will assume you are ribbing me by discussing a circumstance in which I might be considered a better taster than you. We both know that you are a far better taster than I.

PPS I made up the "Tahitian lime" example, but I believe every other one I've used in this thread came straight from WA184.

Damn, all this discussion whilst I was off counting sheep. Just for the record, I also prefer pithy tasting notes over a straight score. Interesting to see Robyn's reference to Gary V above. I read an interesting article on him yesterday in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/dinin ... ref=dining

The article focuses in on one of his shows where Janis Robinson was his guest and the contrast between generational tasting styles. I have to admit I like his punchy style of reviewing even if I may look to JR for more guidance when looking to buy and cellar wine. I also really enjoy watching from time to time the old Rogov/Gary interview for an interesting contrast in tasting styles (Rogov reminds me of my father without the knowledge about wine).

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. It's very much a piss-take and I think there was also a temporary move to rating to 3 decimal places.
Ian

Craig Thomson

http://www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz/content/view/106/57/

Yep, Craig's the man. Sadly he has dropped the three decimal places.

Incidentally, as many people realise, 100 point systems vary. Bob Campbell MW, NZ's top reviewer, has two points added to his scores published on his website for publication in Australia's Gourmet Traveller Wine magazine. So what you read in the magazine and what you will see on Bob's website will differ for the same wine. If you read the magazine's scoring criteria, or Bob's scoring criteria on his website in conjuction with the scores in those two places, you get some understanding of what the scores mean but when plucked out of the air and quoted willy-nilly, they can mean a different level of excellence (or non-excellence) than intended.

Cheers,
Sue

One can take the range of scores of one scoring system and line them up with the corresponding (of the same or similar “quality” rating) range of scores from another scoring system and come up with a conversion equation to convert from one scoring system to another. Doesn’t matter if one scoring system is based on 5 objects (stars or glasses), 100-point scale, or 20-point scale as long as the judging is done “blind”. In the case of Just Wine Points, they make it pretty clear that the wine is judged not only on style and type but also on price point.

Salute

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?

Matt,
Just wanted to chime in here about walnut husk. Whereas we might agree about a lot of the overblown rhetoric in many tasting notes, walnut husk is a very recognizable smell. As we have an aged black walnut tree overhanging our back yard, I am exquisitely familiar with that intense smell, which is close enough to Lemon Pledge™ for most people to get instantly. My ChemSmell vocabulary usually lists it as "monoterpene," a category that includes pine needles and nutmeg husks (a smell I know courtesy of a former student from Malaysia -- another pungent and unforgettable smell).

I can honestly say, though, that no wine in my experience has ever reminded me of walnut husk.

HTH
Mark Lipton

ÁRDÍRI
Pinot Noir Napa Valley Carneros 2006

Wine Spectator: 79 points
95 points, Pinot Noir Shootout:
93 points, redwinebuzz.com
91 points, PinotReport


I'm not making any judgments on the wine because I've had neither. But one would wonder why a wine judged a "C+" (79) by one person would be judged an "A" (91-95 points) by others. I guess it depends on the teacher ...

I'm a little late to this party, but unlike the PinotReport or the Pinot Noir Shootout, my score is achieved by following criteria. Not in the sense of "90-95 points means...." but in the way a wine is awarded/accrues points (http://tinyurl.com/yeqx4a2 - pardon the formatting irregularities, we're rebuilding the site and this page has not been cleaned up yet)
While I abandoned the 100-point scale for a 5-star scale, I still use criteria. The score is not supposed to be an indication of y preference or enjoyment (which may be different from my readers'). Any rating system must use some benchmarks and gradations of quality that can be followed consistently.

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.

To kind of back this up... A wine note (just like a score) is an interpretation of the wine. The language one uses to signify can be normalized such that individuals can begin to agree on what constitutes "golden" versus "pale staw" in color, for example, if they want. But even where such attempts at objectivity exist, such as with WSET and the MW program, as I understand it, there is usually the caveat that wine ought only be broken down into categories--such that if you find "red fruits" in a wine one should accept the difference in tasting notes between cherry and strawberry without compromising the attempt at agreement/objectivity. Therefore only categorical differences in taste are significant (at least for those that want to objectify taste), and even these can only be based on a given set of criteria/agreements.

But within these categories, assuming we share some set of criteria, there is a good deal of room for interpretive differences in language. But if you find "shrimp shells" and I find "iodine," in theory we still have some form of agreement. This is purely an interpretive difference, but at the same time because of this I don't see why it's a problem to find "shrimp shells" if I only find "iodine." The only distinction is what you, as a reader, prefer to read about the wine, and if you share, as you say, similar "associations."

Similarly, scores are useful inasmuch as they rate a wine according to some given set of interpretive criteria. Scores are "wine notes" by other means; by a different unit of signification. Radically different scores reflect (hopefully) different interpretive criteria, such that--allowing for the obvious viscissitudes of a specific tasting--if you find somebody rating a wine a 70 that you give a 90, you are probably working from different criteria (or are not working from any trained/agreed upon criteria, but only your own ideosyncratic interpretation). They can be useful in this way in weeding out those who don't likely share your personal criteria.

For whatever it's worth, I think most of us, without training to normalize our palates according to criteria, nevertheless fall into different discourses that reflect shared assumptions and therefore allow for/create some level of normalization.