Expert Wine Tasting

It will take me a while to get through Dr. Ronald Jackson’s second edition of Wine Tasting - A professional Handbook, 2009, Academic Press, with its 460 page scientific analysis of wine tasting. I wanted to mention that it addresses the points I made recently concerning the distinction between sensation and perception in wine appreciation.

Jackson explains the reason why novices can’t as readily appreciate fine wine as connoisseurs. Novices process wine appreciation in a separate part of the brain, namely gustatory cortex and regions associated with emotional processing. The degree of sweetness is their most important determinant of pleasure. Connoisseurs in contrast utilize the left insula and orbitofrontal complex where memory and knowledge infuse with basic sensory perceptions to form a richer, more complex appreciation.

Jackson says it is becoming clear that perception is relative, with few absolutes and that what individuals perceive depends not only on their genetics, but also their upbringing, current emotional and physical health and the context in which the tasting occurs. Within limits, he says, the latter can be more important to perception than the quality of the wine. According to Jackson, investigations have clearly demonstrated how powerful expectation or suggestion can be, not only on the higher cognitive centers of the brain, but also on how they impact the responsiveness of receptor neurons.

Jackson goes on to elaborate how connoisseurs can better appreciate complex expressions from fine wines in the absence of food. He says the development and finish of a wine are seldom detectable when consumed with the banalizing influence of food.

As an aside, the best food wine for me of all time was a five dollar 1985 Gallo Cabernet Sauvignon. An advantage of having surplus income is the enablement of drinking Lafite with your meal without causing worry that you are not getting your full money’s worth, since you can buy Lafite by the case so that you can sample a bottle in isolation at will.

Wine Tasting is a formidable work. Since I don’t have the wherewithal to sit down and read it continuously, it might take me six months to get through it. With its hundreds of scholarly references, I have to wonder what sort of an IQ Jackson has to permit him to finish such an effort in a reasonable timeframe. I hope he has presented the fruits of his experience in a way that blokes of lesser intellect can understand it. In spite of the tome of science, Dr. Jackson seems at core to be as much an aesthete and philosopher as a scientist.

There is no question that finer wine tastings can be appreciated by those with totally educated and experienced palates. I think those are about the only folks that can readily pick up all the different notes regarding wines. All that takes time, and keeping good notes about everything you have tasted. To me, what is the ultimate, is to be able to taste a wine, that was just fermented and put into casks and know just about everything how that wine will be when its bottled and how long it should age before reaching its prime.
When I was in France, I watched one of the winemakers, taste a little of his Chateau Batailley (5th Growth Paulliac) and told us it was going to be an above average wine, the tannins will start to mature about 4 years after its bottled and it will reach its prime about 8 years after it was first bottled. I was a bit amazed!

I have run so many different types of wine tasters.. For the Novice, for an educated palate and for some who knew a great deal about wines, the grapes, the process.
I run daily wine tastings and I select different wine types each week. I try to concentrate on the Country, The Grape, The Style more than I do about a particular winery.
This is another article I have in the local Advertising magazine

Wine Tasting - An Art, a science or just Fun!

Wine Tasting began the first time wine was made. Recently, there has been a big move on wine tasting at the retail or winery levels. You will find that there are many different words, terms, and techniques used. Many of them go beyond what I believe is necessary for anyone to taste a wine and enjoy it.

There still are some basics things that you should know about wine tasting:

Look - How the wine in the glass looks. For reds, its the depth of the color that sometimes can determine the body of the wine. For whites, its the clarity and crystal clear look. Swirl the wine a bit and then look for the legs. This is what you see from the wine coming back down into the glass. Thick full legs indicate a higher level of alcoholic content and generally a fully bodied wine.

Smell - In many wine books and magazines, you will hear about the Bouquet or Aroma of the wine . In the simplest of terms, Aroma comes from the grape that is being used. Bouquet is really about the actual wine making process and then the maturing of the wine from the cask to the bottle. But bottom line, just think about what you are smelling when you start to taste a wine. It does help to swirl the wine in the glass, this allows the smells to be more apparent. Stick your nose right in the glass to appreciate what is there.

Taste - Now that you've looked at the wine and smelled the wine, its time to taste it. Just take a small sip and slush it around you mouth a bit. This doesnt have to be a loud long process like you may see at some wine tastings, but just enough to allow the wine to move around all parts of your tongue. Here is where you will pick up the acidity of the wine, the sugar level, the tannins of the wine. Tannins, what is that? They come from the grape skins being used and the aging of the wine in oak casks. In general the wine maker can control the level of tannins in the wine. Tannins will give you that dry puckering sensation. The level of tannins also help in the aging process in the bottle. Wines with lower levels of tannins are normally drunk when young. Wines with high levels need more time to allow the tannins to mature. Next would come the different flavors that you detect while tasting. You will find wine notes that talk about cassis, blackberry, smoke, oak, chocolate, fruit, honey and so much more. Thats all nice to know, but instead of reading a wine description or the person pouring the wine, you determine what flavors you detect! That is much more important than what someone else is telling you what to notice. Last, to me the biggest, is the finish. My idea of the perfectly balanced wine is one that Starts and Ends the same. So for a noble red, you would see a big start to tasting the wine and a big finish. What disappointments me the most is when a wine starts out fine, but the finish is thin or uneventful.

Swallow or Spit the wine? You will see many people spitting the wine into a bucket after tasting it. This is a good process when you are tasting a number of different wines. You don't want one wine's taste to effect the next wine's taste. I've been tasting wines for over 30 years now and I never spit! Now, if while tasting, your wine glass is full, then after a few glasses, your senses would not be the same. But then, its no longer a wine tasting, but a wine drinking exercise.

There are books and articles written on the entire art of tasting wines. I would encourage anyone to read those. But keep in mind, unless you are a merchant looking to purchase large amounts of certain wine, then do the wine tasting for FUN. Wine tasting should be all about what you like, not what a book says, not what the wine ratings are, or even what the wine merchant is telling you.

Enjoy your Wine - Thats what it should always be about!

There is no question that finer wine tastings can be appreciated by those with totally educated and experienced palates...

Ron, thank you for the informative comments. Your story about Château Batailley reinforces a notion I have that some people have a gas liquid phase chromatograph-like ability to analyze the chemicals they are imbibing. These chemicals in wines change as they evolve over time so that with experience of particular developments such a taster can know from an early profile where the wine is going. Robert Parker appears to have this ability.

In studies where labels are switched and experienced tasters follow the label in their opinions, waxing ecstatically over a $15 Merlot with a Château Pétrus label and disregarding a Pétrus with a Gallo Merlot label, etc., there are always a couple of experts out of ten, or so, that are not solely influenced by the labels and can follow the chemicals. These are the GLC tasters. It is my guess that these GLC tasters are responsible for initially anointing wines such as Lafite or Margaux as First Growths, while the majority of connoisseurs and posers alike follow blindly and sycophantically, but reinforce the lead, creating an ever expanding swirl of greatness for all time.

I think in the best of all worlds, a man (or woman) can have a remarkable scientific and experiential understanding of wine, but when drinking a great bottle with a woman on a beach in some exotic locale, he can discard consciously all the science and arrive in the moment for all the romance the spot in time commands. When tasting for science, while discarding consciously most thoughts about beautiful women in exotic situations, I still have never spit a drop of wine, because the unconscious memories of special moments maintain the reverence – even when tasting 100 glasses of Bordeaux, which I recently did in Boston.

Do you have a schedule online for your Milford tastings? I should like to drive over for one or more that pique my curiosity. Re France, I will have the pleasure next month of visiting a couple of Bordeaux Châteaux. I am a fan of Château Batailley, but will be on the Right Bank this trip. Someday I want to get to Batailley.

[Jenise]

Your story about Château Batailley reinforces a notion I have that some people have a gas liquid phase chromatograph-like ability to analyze the chemicals they are imbibing. These chemicals in wines change as they evolve over time so that with experience of particular developments such a taster can know from an early profile where the wine is going. Robert Parker appears to have this ability.

My observation is that it's merely a matter of a trained palate with great palate memory tasting barrel samples and eventually bottled product over and over again. No different, actually, than putting all the neccessary ingredients into a braise and knowing what the dish is going to taste like two hours later when some flavors soften and others ripen. Most of us don't get both opportunities, so we don't develop the skill.

Your story about Château Batailley reinforces a notion I have that some people have a gas liquid phase chromatograph-like ability to analyze the chemicals they are imbibing. These chemicals in wines change as they evolve over time so that with experience of particular developments such a taster can know from an early profile where the wine is going. Robert Parker appears to have this ability.

My observation is that it's merely a matter of a trained palate with great palate memory tasting barrel samples and eventually bottled product over and over again. No different, actually, than putting all the neccessary ingredients into a braise and knowing what the dish is going to taste like two hours later when some flavors soften and others ripen. Most of us don't get both opportunities, so we don't develop the skill.

Jenise, I have been reading a little about perception recently. There are very pronounced differences in individual ability to discern things. For example, depending on the size of a certain little part of the brain, a person can tell if two horizontal lines, one on top and one on the bottom of the page, are the same length or not. Everybody can be educated somewhat, but only to some extent. I am quite sure that the guy next door could be right next to Parker through all of Parker’s tastings, but would never be able to discern in wine what Parker can – but I can’t prove my opinion, right now, anyway.

[Jenise]

Jenise, I have been reading a little about perception recently. There are very pronounced differences in individual ability to discern things. For example, depending on the size of a certain little part of the brain, a person can tell if two horizontal lines, one on top and one on the bottom of the page, are the same length or not. Everybody can be educated somewhat, but only to some extent. I am quite sure that the guy next door could be right next to Parker through all of Parker’s tastings, but would never be able to discern in wine what Parker can – but I can’t prove my opinion, right now, anyway.

Oh I agree with that completely. I didn't say "any two people", but rather, my example presumed that the persons who did and did not get the opportunity to taste barrel samples were had otherwise equally talented and experienced palates. Some people can NEVER be trained.

'Discern' is the operative word, but there's a second factor I think. Caring. The difference in what one discerns has to matter. Back to food, in my life I've known people who can go eat the finest meal and agree that it's the finest meal they've ever had, but they happily go home and back to the same Hamburger Helper. The meal of a lifetime isn't life-changing. Their personal standards remain virtually unchanged by their experience. They do not seek perfection. Same with wine. Experience is part of the training, but for everybody on this board if we didn't have the raw material, the receptors to appreciate that the epiphany wine we all seem to have had at some point (your Chasse Spleen, my Montrachet in Paris, Parker's summer in France) was indeed the start of a tireless pursuit, then we'd all be drinking Yellow Tail.

my Montrachet in Paris

Sounds like a very interesting story...

There's discerning and then there's enjoying and the two are not necessarily the same thing.

[Jenise]

my Montrachet in Paris

Sounds like a very interesting story...

I know, I know. Soon, soon.

There's discerning and then there's enjoying and the two are not necessarily the same thing.

The Yale professor, Dr. Paul Bloom, who I quoted, maintains from his research that the enjoyment one gets with discernment is of a much more profound nature, and happens in a different part of the brain, than the enjoyment a person gets without discernment. As Jenise says, a novice can "enjoy" a great wine "mmmm" and go back home to Yellow Tail without missing a beat, because the sugar in Yellow Tail makes it even nicer.

test

Jenise, I have been reading a little about perception recently. There are very pronounced differences in individual ability to discern things. For example, depending on the size of a certain little part of the brain, a person can tell if two horizontal lines, one on top and one on the bottom of the page, are the same length or not. Everybody can be educated somewhat, but only to some extent. I am quite sure that the guy next door could be right next to Parker through all of Parker’s tastings, but would never be able to discern in wine what Parker can – but I can’t prove my opinion, right now, anyway.

Oh I agree with that completely. I didn't say "any two people", but rather, my example presumed that the persons who did and did not get the opportunity to taste barrel samples were had otherwise equally talented and experienced palates. Some people can NEVER be trained.

'Discern' is the operative word, but there's a second factor I think. Caring. The difference in what one discerns has to matter. Back to food, in my life I've known people who can go eat the finest meal and agree that it's the finest meal they've ever had, but they happily go home and back to the same Hamburger Helper. The meal of a lifetime isn't life-changing. Their personal standards remain virtually unchanged by their experience. They do not seek perfection. Same with wine. Experience is part of the training, but for everybody on this board if we didn't have the raw material, the receptors to appreciate that the epiphany wine we all seem to have had at some point (your Chasse Spleen, my Montrachet in Paris, Parker's summer in France) was indeed the start of a tireless pursuit, then we'd all be drinking Yellow Tail.

The phrase, Montrachet in Paris, is almost orgasmic in itself. Thanks for remembering the Chasse Spleen story. And, yes, completely agree re caring.