provenance, just thinking out loud...

It's been bugging me for some time now, why is it not common practice to include the provenance of a wine along with tasting notes? I am not talking about the "pros", but I mean pretty much everyone has some idea of where their wine came from, it didn't just fall from the sky, and it's so important! If I bought a used car and was telling someone how it was performing I'd almost certainly include the fact of whether it had 30,000 miles on it or 300,000.
I've been guilty of this myself, assuming that those reading my notes would assume the wonderful provenance of the wine I was talking about, no more, from now on I specify! I think this is something that should be encouraged on wine sites and cellartracker. After all, how helpful is it to anyone to read someone's 80 point dress down of a wine that's been sitting in their bedroom closet for three years!

I would think that people that post wine notes, on blogs, boards and all, are rather geeky about wine and the great majority store their wine properly, so I don't really see the need to disclose provenance. Now, if they're offering wine for sale, that's another issue.

Drew

I would think that people that post wine notes, on blogs, boards and all, are rather geeky about wine and the great majority store their wine properly, so I don't really see the need to disclose provenance.

Yes, but for older wines, not everyone has had them stored since release. And, it already seems to be more or less common practice to mention when/how the bottle was acquired when posting notes on older wines.

[James Roscoe]

For older wines that the poster has not owned since release, it does seem that provenance would be a useful part of the process. There are a lot of problems out there in the wine world, especially in Asia. So it might be nice to know where the wine is from!

I would think that people that post wine notes, on blogs, boards and all, are rather geeky about wine and the great majority store their wine properly, so I don't really see the need to disclose provenance.

Yes, but for older wines, not everyone has had them stored since release. And, it already seems to be more or less common practice to mention when/how the bottle was acquired when posting notes on older wines.

I think, as Drew suggests, that it's probably a pretty safe bet that wine notes on WLDG refer to well stored wines. There are numerous different definitions of "well stored" though. For instance, I've had a lot of success with many wines in my passive basement cellar which will gradually swing between about 45 & 68 degrees annually, but it's not the same, or as broadly useful in terms of wine types, as my storage space, which is a constant 55 or so degrees and perfect humidity all year round.

What you suggest Rahsaan is true. How have those older wines been stored? when and how were they acquired? It's all meaningful. I don't see that it's common practice to mention these sorts of things, although I think it should be. Especially on Cellartracker, which I often find useful in trying to pick up the general progress, state, or qualities of a wine, I think assuming proper storage is far less of a safe bet. Sometimes when I am reading notes on Cellartracker they are so divergent that I strongly question the provenance of the wine and would love to be privy to it. Cellartracker would be so much more relevant with provenance included in the tasting notes.

I think, as Rahsaan says, that it's probably a pretty safe bet that wine notes on WLDG refer to well stored wines.

I never said that. I think many of us buying older wines at retail or auction will acknowledge the unknown provenance.

Plus, not everyone here has glacial cellars!

Tom V wrote:
I think assuming proper storage is far less of a safe bet. Sometimes when I am reading notes on Cellartracker they are so divergent that I strongly question the provenance of the wine and would love to be privy to it. Cellartracker would be so much more relevant with provenance included in the tasting notes.

I think that divergent tasting notes have more to do with peoples perception of flavors and their ability to describe what they taste. I would agree that assuming proper storage for older wines is less of a safe bet and I should have stated that I don't purchase older wines. I also have a passive cellar which maintains an average of 56 degrees with proper humidity. The majority of my wines are on the younger side (nothing older than 1990) because that's where my, and my wifes' tastes go. I think there's too many unknown variables in stating provenance. Sure, I know how I store but have little knowledge as to provenance relating to shipping and storing prior to my purchase, other than the storage at the store if I purchase locally.

Provenence might be useful. But how much detail about provenance should you include? And where do you stop? Other important factors include state of the cork, fill level, serving temperature, wine glass, food served with the wine, preferences and sensitivities of the taster...

All reasons why I don't pay that much attention to tasting notes - I even regard my own with suspicion.

My general rule is to state (what I know re) provenance if a bottle is problematic or there is any reason to think warm storage (or especially cold storage) might be a factor. I also mention any unusual bottle conditions. But if someone has a 1970 Bordeaux that is drinking well, not sure how much is gained by them going into where they got it. I mean, 40 years and showing well pretty much assumes good storage. I have commented with surprise in a couple of cases where I knew bottle had seen some rough treatment yet showed well.

Provenance is certainly important factor when purchasing, but even that is never a guarantee of good storage. Someone might have bought 89 Beaucastel on release and stored at 55 ever since, but if that was a US bottle that sat on docks in 1991 during heat it's still damaged. Of course, if the provenance is impeccable (Glamis Castle, or the Scandinavian doctor- Nils someone- who auctioned at Zachys a couple of years) one would pay more. If provenance is good (an established house says bought on release and stored properly), one would pay a bit more. I occasionally buy at Winebid, but due to uncertainty I also bid probably 20% less all-in than I would from a real auction house or retailer.

Personally, while I got into wines when 88-90 Bdx were out, anything I have now older than 1995 is bought on secondary market (I drank up everything from first few years of collecting). My storage is passive with a range from 50 F to 67 F (slow seasonal), but no humidity control (dry in winter). I mention if my experiences seem to be at odds with others.

Steve, I ESPECIALLY regard my own with suspicion.

[David M. Bueker]

Plus, not everyone here has glacial cellars!

Plus, not everyone here has glacial cellars!

We quit buying older wines for resale in our store a few years back after being "burned" on what we thought were wines with good provenance. I will not go into the details but the provenance of these wine had been totally misrepresented to us by someone we thought we could trust. We made good to the customers who had bought from us but believe me it's very difficult to know exactly where a wine has been a few years after bottling.

Provenence might be useful. But how much detail about provenance should you include? And where do you stop? Other important factors include state of the cork, fill level, serving temperature, wine glass, food served with the wine, preferences and sensitivities of the taster...

The more detailed posters include all of this information.

Not that everyone has to follow a strict formula, but it's not exactly impossible or rare to give a detailed picture of the wine.

I think, as Rahsaan says, that it's probably a pretty safe bet that wine notes on WLDG refer to well stored wines.

I never said that. I think many of us buying older wines at retail or auction will acknowledge the unknown provenance.

Plus, not everyone here has glacial cellars!

Rahsaan you're quite right, you didn't say that. I mixed up your statement with Drew's, sorry for the mix up. I edited the post.

My general rule is to state (what I know re) provenance if a bottle is problematic or there is any reason to think warm storage (or especially cold storage) might be a factor. I also mention any unusual bottle conditions. But if someone has a 1970 Bordeaux that is drinking well, not sure how much is gained by them going into where they got it. I mean, 40 years and showing well pretty much assumes good storage. I have commented with surprise in a couple of cases where I knew bottle had seen some rough treatment yet showed well.

Provenance is certainly important factor when purchasing, but even that is never a guarantee of good storage. Someone might have bought 89 Beaucastel on release and stored at 55 ever since, but if that was a US bottle that sat on docks in 1991 during heat it's still damaged. Of course, if the provenance is impeccable (Glamis Castle, or the Scandinavian doctor- Nils someone- who auctioned at Zachys a couple of years) one would pay more. If provenance is good (an established house says bought on release and stored properly), one would pay a bit more. I occasionally buy at Winebid, but due to uncertainty I also bid probably 20% less all-in than I would from a real auction house or retailer.

Personally, while I got into wines when 88-90 Bdx were out, anything I have now older than 1995 is bought on secondary market (I drank up everything from first few years of collecting). My storage is passive with a range from 50 F to 67 F (slow seasonal), but no humidity control (dry in winter). I mention if my experiences seem to be at odds with others.

Steve, I ESPECIALLY regard my own with suspicion.

Yes you're certainly right there Dale, a 40 year old wine that's drinking well really can't have been abused much if at all. Still, if I know that that 40 year old wine was stored in your passive storage with it's gradual 50 to 67F, that definitely adds an interesting dimension to the notes.

I bought a case of that '89 Beaucastel in 1991, $19.99 a bottle. As I've mentioned in a previous post, when I opened the case a year or two ago there were some pretty scary looking bottles in it! I consider myself lucky on this purchase though as I've opened a couple bottles, starting with the scariest and moving up the line, and the wine has been pretty tasty. Actually, I really don't understand how the bottles I have opened can look like they do and not taste like stewed prune juice! I can only imagine what a pristine bottle is like.

Anyway, I'll take as much of the info Steve mentions as people are willing to provide. It's all helpful, interesting, and meaningful I think.

Steve: "I especially regard my own with suspicion" +1

My general rule is to state (what I know re) provenance if a bottle is problematic or there is any reason Steve: "I especially regard my own with suspicion" +1

Smiley noted, but the big positive about your own palate is that you do not need to calibrate it against someone else's. And the chances are that you will treat your own wines the same way. As for your palate being unreliable - you are going to be stuck with that, regardless of what other people say about the wine and how reliable they may be. For those reasons (not out of hubris) I would not use the word "especially".

My general rule is to state (what I know re) provenance if a bottle is problematic or there is any reason Steve: "I especially regard my own with suspicion" +1

Smiley noted, but the big positive about your own palate is that you do not need to calibrate it against someone else's. And the chances are that you will treat your own wines the same way. As for your palate being unreliable - you are going to be stuck with that, regardless of what other people say about the wine and how reliable they may be. or those reasons (not out of hubris) I would not use the word "especially".[/quote



Steve, I was quoting Dale, that's his general rule which I can't take credit for.

Anyhow, I get your drift, but I do like to read other's notes in light of the provenance of the wine they are review because it sometimes helps me appreciate and understand the qualities and characteristics of a wine better. At this point in my wine consumption career I am pretty good at picking out what, generally speaking, are the "good" wines from the flawed ones, and of course most importantly the ones that I like, but I ain't no RP and sometimes when I smell or taste something in a wine, I find I can't put a label on it, so notes can alert me to things which I can then more clearly recognize. I know that doesn't change what the wine tastes like, but it does enhance my enjoyment.

I have read that the ability to identify and isolate smells and tastes is something that can be enhanced by practice, so I really should, and I do intend to, drag out the French "smelling kit" that my wife bought me a couple of Christmases ago and train my brain.

Provenance is so important to me that it governs my wine purchasing. I have cut down on European purchases. How long is the trans Atlantic trip, how long does it sit off Panama waiting to get thru the canal? Importer " Oh but it is refrigerated in a temp controlled reefer". Really. A reefer has enough fuel for a 2 week trip? They don't in my business. What if your container is in the hull of the ship. The reefer is sure not going to be fired up in a closed area.
Therefore I'm buying more Northwest wines. Wineries that are closer to my residence, so I can have some control of provenance.

Provenance is so important to me that it governs my wine purchasing. I have cut down on European purchases. How long is the trans Atlantic trip, how long does it sit off Panama waiting to get thru the canal? Importer " Oh but it is refrigerated in a temp controlled reefer". Really. A reefer has enough fuel for a 2 week trip? They don't in my business. What if your container is in the hull of the ship. The reefer is sure not going to be fired up in a closed area.
Therefore I'm buying more Northwest wines. Wineries that are closer to my residence, so I can have some control of provenance.

Suddenly shipping to the Middle East starts to sound reasonable.

I have read that the ability to identify and isolate smells and tastes is something that can be enhanced by practice, so I really should, and I do intend to, drag out the French "smelling kit" that my wife bought me a couple of Christmases ago and train my brain.

I'd be interested to know how you get on with that. I also have a Nez du Vin (also a Christmas present from my wife, actually) and used it enthusiastlcally for a while. The big lesson I have drawn is that it is not easy to recognise aromas! With practice I improved on the kit aromas, but I am not sure it has helped me with real wines.

With real wines, I have now largely decided that there is a serious danger of imagining aromas that do not exist in any real sense, so I usually now stick to the ones that are obvious to me in TNs - either that or I am deliberately vague. Better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong, as an egineering lecturer I know used to say.

Steve wrote;
Better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong, as an engineering lecturer I know used to say.

It’s best not to smell the vials at “full strength” but “doctor-up” a fairly inexpensive “neutral” red or white wine with the “minimum” amount of a given odor/sample (that you can actually “detect” it in the wine sample). Over time try reducing the concentration. (When using a commercially available wine aroma sample kit read the directions carefully to make sure it’s “safe” to “drink” the samples. Better yet make your own samples- The University Wine Course- A Wine Appreciation Text & Self Tutorial by Marian W, Baldy, PH.D).

Ah, but IMHO there is no right or wrong when it comes to wine (especially when it comes to taste), this is what makes it a “fascinating” drink (for me anyway). Why do you say that someone’s interpretation is “imagined” or not “real”? Whether it is “imagined” by the mind, or the mind just “playing tricks”, with the various “stimulus” it is receiving from the glass of wine does not make it “unreal” or “imagined” to the individual experiencing it. (It might only seem “unreal” or “imagined” to us who have a “different” experience, but then again there would be others who say our experience is only “imagined” and “unreal” and so on…).

Salute

I have read that the ability to identify and isolate smells and tastes is something that can be enhanced by practice, so I really should, and I do intend to, drag out the French "smelling kit" that my wife bought me a couple of Christmases ago and train my brain.

I'd be interested to know how you get on with that. I also have a Nez du Vin (also a Christmas present from my wife, actually) and used it enthusiastlcally for a while. The big lesson I have drawn is that it is not easy to recognise aromas! With practice I improved on the kit aromas, but I am not sure it has helped me with real wines.

With real wines, I have now largely decided that there is a serious danger of imagining aromas that do not exist in any real sense, so I usually now stick to the ones that are obvious to me in TNs - either that or I am deliberately vague. Better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong, as an egineering lecturer I know used to say.

Yeah I'm definitely going to have to give this a run. I have the master set that has 54 (!) aromas. I think you'd have to be gifted to learn to ID all those scents in a wine, but if it helps me pick out just 25% of those I'd be happy. It's funny the disconnect that seems to exist between smelling something and identifying the smell. There's a restaurant in Manhattan that has a "Dining In The Dark" event wherein the diners are blindfolded and, I suppose, challenged to concentrate on what they're eating and name what it is. I personally prefer to eat unblindfolded, but It does sort of illustrate the point! Anyway, I will let you know how I make out with it Steve.

Oh and... "Better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong", I like that, a useful aphorism!

It’s best not to smell the vials at “full strength” but “doctor-up” a fairly inexpensive “neutral” red or white wine with the “minimum” amount of a given odor/sample (that you can actually “detect” it in the wine sample). Over time try reducing the concentration. (When using a commercially available wine aroma sample kit read the directions carefully to make sure it’s “safe” to “drink” the samples. Better yet make your own samples- The University Wine Course- A Wine Appreciation Text & Self Tutorial by Marian W, Baldy, PH.D).

I don't doubt that is preferable, but you would not get very far with the small volumes of each aroma you get in a Nez du Vin kit.

Ah, but IMHO there is no right or wrong when it comes to wine (especially when it comes to taste), this is what makes it a “fascinating” drink (for me anyway). Why do you say that someone’s interpretation is “imagined” or not “real”? Whether it is “imagined” by the mind, or the mind just “playing tricks”, with the various “stimulus” it is receiving from the glass of wine does not make it “unreal” or “imagined” to the individual experiencing it. (It might only seem “unreal” or “imagined” to us who have a “different” experience, but then again there would be others who say our experience is only “imagined” and “unreal” and so on…).

I apreciate what you are saying, and was very aware as I wrote that there are the issues you highlight here, but I decided to press send anyway.

Speaking personally, I think there is a level of precision in describing an aroma beyond which it becomes arbitrary. For example, I might have an idea what an orange smells like, but I seriously doubt my ability to distinguish between different varieties - mandarin, clementine etc. Partly because each variety also has a range of aromas. Indeed when smelling pure citrus fruits blind, it is not as easy as you think even to distinguish an orange from other citrus fruit. So when I say "clementine" (which I might do occasionally) I think there is a fair chance it is imagined, and sometimes when I say "orange". The words get into my head somehow, but I think the source comes from somewhere other than the liquid in front of me - quite posibly because I know how the wine is "meant" to smell. I think that is probably true for others too but I don't what to rubbish other peoples notes here, and I do not doubt that some professionally trained noses can perform a lot better than amateurs (and a lot of critics I suspect).

I am still not sure I have expressed myself well, but I hope that gives a better indication.

Smiley noted, but the big positive about your own palate is that you do not need to calibrate it against someone else's. And the chances are that you will treat your own wines the same way. As for your palate being unreliable - you are going to be stuck with that, regardless of what other people say about the wine and how reliable they may be. For those reasons (not out of hubris) I would not use the word "especially".

Steve, I was the one who (mostly jokingly) inserted "especially". Only "mostly" because I do recognize that I just don't have the acute physical abilities that many tasters have. But even allowing for that, I regard my notes as a better guide for me than those of the world's most accomplished tasters.