WTN/Wine Advisor: Two ways to smell? (Cappellano 03 Nebiolo)

[Robin Garr]

Two ways to smell?

We smell with our noses and taste with our mouths, right? This truth seems so self-evident as to need no further examination.

Not so fast!

As it turns out, much of the sense that we call "taste" is actually based on what we smell; and you do in fact receive aroma impressions not only when you sniff a sample of food or drink but when it's in your mouth as well.

This may seem like mere trivia, but it has significant practical implications for wine tasting: By paying conscious attention to what we might call "nose smell" and "mouth smell," we add another dimension of analysis when we're paying serious attention to our wine.

Although we speak of "tasting" wine, it's arguable that smelling plays a much greater role in our enjoyment (which helps explain why it's pretty much a waste to drink good wine when you have a bad head cold.)

Bear in mind that our taste buds - tiny flavor receptors on the tongue and walls of the mouth - are equipped to sense only four or five specific flavors: Sweet, sour, salty, bitter and, somewhat controversially, a fifth taste that the Japanese call "<i>umami</i>," a difficult-to-translate term that falls somewhere in the neighborhood of "meaty" or "savory."

On the other hand, our olfactory receptors (why don't they call them "smell buds"?) are equipped to distinguish among more than 10,000 separate aromas. Ten thousand smells. Four or five tastes: In other words, we get at least two thousand times more information about food or drink from smell than from taste.

But, returning to the point of today's dissertation, smell is not all about the nose. The sensory mechanism that tweaks out those 10,000 different aroma molecules and reports, "That one's rare grilled beef, this one's toasty <i>pain grillé</i> and that one over there, eeuuuwww," resides not in the nose but the olfactory epithelium, a little patch about the size of the bar code on a wine-bottle back label, up at the top of a bony cavern inside our skulls at the base of the brain.

Yes, smells reach the olfactory epithelium through our noses. But smells <i>also</i> get there by an alternative route: Inside the mouth, at the back of the palate, an internal chimney called the "retro-nasal passage" delivers another aroma shot straight to the brain, giving us a second chance to smell what we're about to swallow before it goes down the hatch.

This mechanism likely evolved to give early humans a second line of defense against consuming rotten or spoiled food. But in our kinder, gentler modern times, it gives us another way to enjoyably analyze our wine.

This is not entirely trivial, as you'll sometimes find - as I did with today's featured wine, an idiosyncratically spelled "Nebiolo" from Alba in Northwestern Italy's Piemonte - that the nose smell and the mouth smell deliver significantly different impressions.

In this instance, the traditional swirl-and-sniff technique brought up a deliciously complex aroma set featuring black fruit, dried fruit and a nice earthy touch of something surprisingly reminiscent of hot tar, a typical characteristic of Nebbiolo.

But when I got the wine in my mouth, along with the essential sweet, sour and slightly bitter mix that the taste buds are equipped to deliver, the retro-nasal passage went to work and sent my aroma sensors a distinct, lovely whiff of fresh spring violets - another Nebbiolo characteristic - that wasn't evident directly from the nose at all.

Next time you're tasting a good wine, take an extra moment to pay attention to what you're smelling when the wine is in your mouth. I think you'll find it an interesting way to enhance your tasting pleasure.

<table border="0" align="right" width="170"><tr><td><img src="http://www.wineloverspage.com/graphics1/capp1123.jpg" border="1" align="right"></td></tr></table>Cappellano 2003 Nebiolo d'Alba ($29.99)

Dark ruby with a clear edge, an unusually pretty jewel-like color against the light. Intense and extracted, a signal of the 2003 vintage perhaps, but appealing in its complexity; black plums and Nebbiolo "tar," hints of raisin and perhaps just a suggestion of hazelnuts. Flavors consistent, plums and a scent of Nebbiolo "violets" sensed more inside the mouth than through the nose. Firm acidity, which is a good thing, as it needs plenty to stand up to the ripe, extracted fruit. Decent wine, old-style and complex, a bit supercharged by the hot summer of '03 in Europe but still fine. U.S. importer: LDM Wines Inc., NYC; Louis/Dressner Selections. (Nov. 23, 2007)

<B>FOOD MATCH:</b> Needs the bold, robust flavors of red meat, even game, or perhaps strong cheese. It was a delight with the lamb shanks braised with herbs that I'll feature in tomorrow's <i>30 Second Wine Advisor FoodLetter</i>.

<B>VALUE:</B> Rising well above everyday status at $30, but as a hearty companion to a fine roast or cut of red meat during the holiday season, it's certainly worth consideration against other wines in the same price range.

<B>WHEN TO DRINK:</B> Although Nebbiolo d'Alba is not an ager like its siblings Barolo and Barbaresco, a good, ripe yet balanced example like this will easily cellar for seven or eight years and perhaps a decade.

<B>WEB LINK:</B>
For a detailed fact sheet on this wine, plus some information about Cappellano, see the Polaner Selections Website,
[url=http://www.polanerselections.com/page.print.php?pID=2061&prodID=1899]http://www.polanerselections.com/
page.print.php?pID=2061&prodID=1899[/url]

<B>FIND THIS WINE ONLINE:</B>
Chambers Street Wines in NYC still has a small supply of the Cappellano Nebiolo d'Alba. Click this link for the shopping cart.
[url=http://www.chambersstwines.com/Search.asp?search=go&kw=cappellano+2003+Nebiolo]http://www.chambersstwines.com/
Search.asp?search=go&kw=cappellano+2003+Nebiolo[/url]

Check prices and find vendors for Cappellano Nebiolo d'Alba on Wine-Searcher.com:
[url=http://www.wine-searcher.com/find/Cappellano%2bNebbiolo/-/-/USD/A?referring_site=WLP]http://www.wine-searcher.com/
find/Cappellano%2bNebbiolo/-/-/USD/A?referring_site=WLP[/url]

<center>Subscribe to The 30 Second Wine Advisor</center>

This is why you oxygenate the wine (swirl it around) in your mouth. That action helps to release those compounds that you then subsequently smell through the retro nasal passage.

If anyone ever complains about slurping, you could simply explain that you are smelling your wine - again.

I seriously doubt that changes in the smell of a wine via retronasal breathing have anything to do with oxygenation of the wine. It is far more likely that the temperature of the mouth (considerably warmer than a wine) results in an increase in release of volatile compounds from the wine.

You can readily enhance the retronasal effect by actively breathing OUT through your nose with a small amount of wine in your mouth, or immediately after you have swallowed the wine.

Mike

[Robin Garr]

I seriously doubt that changes in the smell of a wine via retronasal breathing have anything to do with oxygenation of the wine. It is far more likely that the temperature of the mouth (considerably warmer than a wine) results in an increase in release of volatile compounds from the wine.

You can readily enhance the retronasal effect by actively breathing OUT through your nose with a small amount of wine in your mouth, or immediately after you have swallowed the wine.

I didn't want to second-guess Jackson, but my reaction was slightly skeptical ... my sense of it is that you get the best oxygenation by swirling in the glass. Swishing in your mouth coats all the sensory surfaces and likely looses a fair storm of olfactory molecules by quick evaporation from those thin coats (just as it does on the walls of the glass).

To me, though, the real message here - particularly for learning wine tasters - is simply to be aware of the two different kinds of smelling and to take a moment to look for them.

I seriously doubt that changes in the smell of a wine via retronasal breathing have anything to do with oxygenation of the wine. It is far more likely that the temperature of the mouth (considerably warmer than a wine) results in an increase in release of volatile compounds from the wine.

You can readily enhance the retronasal effect by actively breathing OUT through your nose with a small amount of wine in your mouth, or immediately after you have swallowed the wine.

I didn't want to second-guess Jackson, but my reaction was slightly skeptical ... my sense of it is that you get the best oxygenation by swirling in the glass. Swishing in your mouth coats all the sensory surfaces and likely looses a fair storm of olfactory molecules by quick evaporation from those thin coats (just as it does on the walls of the glass).

To me, though, the real message here - particularly for learning wine tasters - is simply to be aware of the two different kinds of smelling and to take a moment to look for them.

Apologies to Jackson if my post seems harsh, but oxygen is given way too much credit in wine tasting - especially when its been shown that 1) it does not "soften" tannins and 2) the volatile bloom of a wine can occur in an atmosphere of nitrogen.

Mike

Apologies to Jackson if my post seems harsh, but oxygen is given way too much credit in wine tasting - especially when its been shown that 1) it does not "soften" tannins and 2) the volatile bloom of a wine can occur in an atmosphere of nitrogen.

Mike,
Can you elaborate on the softening of tannins? My understanding is that the astringency of tannins decreases as they polymerize beyond a certain size, and since tannin polymerization is primarily an oxidation reaction, I would think that oxygen would indeed play a pivotal role in the softening process.

Mark Lipton

[Robin Garr]

since tannin polymerization is primarily an oxidation reaction, I would think that oxygen would indeed play a pivotal role in the softening process.

Just to stir the pot a little further, I do not believe that significant polymerization is going to occur during 5 or 10 seconds of swishing in the taster's mouth.

since tannin polymerization is primarily an oxidation reaction, I would think that oxygen would indeed play a pivotal role in the softening process.

Just to stir the pot a little further, I do not believe that significant polymerization is going to occur during 5 or 10 seconds of swishing in the taster's mouth.

No argument here. I can't say that I've ever felt that swishing wine around softened the tannins, anyway. Quite the converse, actually: there's nothing like a few good swishes and slurps to really feel the astringency of youthful or unripe tannins. Having tasted through a few lineups of young CalCabs and Bdx, I can vividly recall feeling the need to scrub out the lining of my mouth with a toothbrush to rid myself of the thick coating of tannins I had acquired. I'm sure that you've never had that experience, Robin.

Mark Lipton

Robin, I don't believe you have your understanding of dynamic anatomy correct. When you have liquid in your mouth and hold it there, you can breath through your nose. This is accomplished by the soft palate dropping down to open the nasal passage, AND the tongue "mounding up" in the back of the mouth, both will generally prevent liquids (and thus smells) into the nose. If this wasn't so, one would routinely get liquids up the nose from the back all of the time. We don't. Retronasal smell, IIRC, involves exhaling AFTER swallowing. The volatilized smell retronasally flows back through the nose and past the smell fibers.

[Robin Garr]

Robin, I don't believe you have your understanding of dynamic anatomy correct. When you have liquid in your mouth and hold it there, you can breath through your nose. This is accomplished by the soft palate dropping down to open the nasal passage, AND the tongue "mounding up" in the back of the mouth, both will generally prevent liquids (and thus smells) into the nose. If this wasn't so, one would routinely get liquids up the nose from the back all of the time. We don't. Retronasal smell, IIRC, involves exhaling AFTER swallowing. The volatilized smell retronasally flows back through the nose and past the smell fibers.

Harry, I'm not a doctor (and I believe you are, correct?) so it would be foolish for me to argue anatomy with you. I'll say this, though: When I swish wine in my mouth, I <i>know</i> that I'm getting a 'mouth smell" effect as well as the impression of the wine on my taste buds. How that happens, I'm not prepared to say, but I'll stand by my observations.

Harry wrote:
If this wasn't so, one would routinely get liquids up the nose from the back all of the time.

Might not be “routine” but it does happen. We’re not talking about a liquid but odor-saturated air.

Salute

Apologies to Jackson if my post seems harsh, but oxygen is given way too much credit in wine tasting - especially when its been shown that 1) it does not "soften" tannins and 2) the volatile bloom of a wine can occur in an atmosphere of nitrogen.

Mike,
Can you elaborate on the softening of tannins? My understanding is that the astringency of tannins decreases as they polymerize beyond a certain size, and since tannin polymerization is primarily an oxidation reaction, I would think that oxygen would indeed play a pivotal role in the softening process.

Mark Lipton

Hi Mark,

Apologies for the late reply to this but I'm traveling in Australia and don't have consistent access to the net. My comments re oxygen and tannins were aimed more at the belief that aeration of a wine (by decanting) softens tannins. I've tried to find evidence for this, but discussions with some folks at UC Davis and Virginia Tech has revealed that there is no experimental evidence that oxygen affects tannins via decanting.

Now this does not negate the possibility that oxygen affects tannin structure during the making of wine. The is a nice discussion on tannins by Jamie Goode on his site.

Mike

Victor, liquids and gases will be able to go to the same areas readily, UNLESS filtered, which the mouth/palate does not. So, I believe you are incorrect.
Robin, I am not clear what you mean by "mouth smell".

Very informative discussion and reminiscent of the ontological trap always lurking about discussions of perception, waiting to sabotage them. Perception has two sides. One has to do with the physics of the problem (chemical properties of the wine, anatomy of mouth and nose, receptors, brain) and the other with psychological experience (mouth smell, grapefruity, minerally, peaches, tart, delicate, etc.). Both are legitimate levels of analysis but lo the result of disagreements opaque to the distinction between them. Talk about apples and oranges! Ain't nuthin compared to the chaos that comes about when mixing up the physical and mental.

This is not to suggest that the the physical and mental are unrelated. The field of study called psychophysics explores their connection. It is to say that "disagreements" in which this critical distinction is not honored are apt to lead to so much blowing in the wind.

No thoughts on the two ways to smell bit, but I had a bottle of this at the end of the summer and thought it was quite nice, although I think I remember it was a bit tannic for drinking on its own.

Dan, I wish I could afford your drink!

What ever happened to 70 to 75% of what you taste is actually smell?

Salute

[Robin Garr]

What ever happened to 70 to 75% of what you taste is actually smell?

Victor, I agree. From the original post, "<i>Although we speak of "tasting" wine, it's arguable that smelling plays a much greater role in our enjoyment (which helps explain why it's pretty much a waste to drink good wine when you have a bad head cold.)

Bear in mind that our taste buds - tiny flavor receptors on the tongue and walls of the mouth - are equipped to sense only four or five specific flavors: Sweet, sour, salty, bitter and, somewhat controversially, a fifth taste that the Japanese call "umami," a difficult-to-translate term that falls somewhere in the neighborhood of "meaty" or "savory."

On the other hand, our olfactory receptors (why don't they call them "smell buds"?) are equipped to distinguish among more than 10,000 separate aromas. Ten thousand smells. Four or five tastes: In other words, we get at least two thousand times more information about food or drink from smell than from taste.</i>"

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by "what ever happened to," though. Care to expand on that?

I do not quite understand Harry’s response. The mouth/palate must filter the liquid and gas (or aroma saturated air)?
When tasting wine (which could contain literally hundreds of aromatic compounds and some of them being highly volatile) and swishing and gargling it in my “warm” mouth, and at the same time letting more air into my mouth (hopefully not drooling all over the place), The additional air would pick up more of these aroma molecules and bring more of them to the olfactory receptor through the “back-door”. The more aromatic compound molecules that make it to the olfactory receptor makes detection easier.
When it comes to the “initial sniff” after swirling aggressively in the glass, IMHO I think I can “smell better” with my mouth slightly opened.

Salute

Along the lines of these observations regarding taste and smell, observe a cat that it trying to capture an elusive scent. It always has its mouth open, and is breathing through both nose and mouth. I find this helpful when sniffing a wine glass.

Most of what we consider the sense of taste is indeed linked to the sense of smell. I witnessed this first hand when some years ago a severe bout of flu knocked out my olfactory sense completely for a week, right around New Year's. For New Year's Eve, I was too ill to cook for myself, but I did get some Chinese take-out from a magnificent Chinese restaurant nearby, and I opened a good bottle of Champagne anyway.

The Mongolian Lamb and Scallions tasted salty. No other flavor whatsoever. It was like eating salty cardboard.

The Champagne had no aroma whatsoever, and tasted sour. Not of lemons or any other citrus--just sour.

It was very depressing. The only upside was that I had been too ill to clean out the cat box for over a week, and when I finally was up to the task, it was in a disgusting state. But I couldn't smell anything at all.

-Paul W.