Jancis Robinson on the trials of being [maybe] a super taster.

Robinson reprises the flap last summer over a test that indicated she is a hyper taster; both Parker and Matt Kramer got their whacks into her assertions, according to her tale. Story here.

She does note that hyper tasters may actually enjoy wine less than more normal tasters:

Jamie Goode, in his extremely accessible book "Wine Science" (Mitchell Beazley, 2005), addresses some of these issues and asks Gary Pickering, a professor of oenology at Brock University in Canada, whether hypertasters are at an advantage when it comes to wine tasting. "I would speculate that supertasters probably enjoy wine less than the rest of us," the professor is reported as saying. "They experience astringency, acidity, bitterness, and heat (from alcohol) more intensely, and this combination may make wine -- or some wine styles -- relatively unappealing."

And, in a catty remark, she notes that Kramer's piece appeared in "that well-known oenophiles' gazette, the New York Sun." I must disagree with Saint Jancis -- the "Sun" really does a very good job on Wednesdays covering wine and food.

In any event, as usual, an enjoyable read from her highness.

Thanks for this.

No surprise at the misunderstanding of what was being said. There seems to be a growing sense of confrontation amongst wine critics these days - Often in the shape of subtle barbed comments, aimed broadly at their colleagues. All pretty childish on the whole.

As to the story, people have different palates. Some are more sensitive to certain aspects than others. Whoopy-do! Why should something blindingly obvious create any tension. Two different palates, two different opinions. Unless one is stupid enough to believe that wine can be precisely graded to mark it's true position on a worldwide scale, then what is the issue.

The science behind the differences is interesting and it would be of great interest if sensible groupings/tests could be introduced, such that (broadly speaking) you could find critics with whom you align (tastebud-wise). I have my doubts that this would work in practice, but I support in principle investigations along these lines.

regards

Ian

[David M. Bueker]

Bob,

Perhaps she knows that the Sun does a good job with its weekly food and wine coverage. Not every remark is a slap in the face.

You may be right, David, and you are certainly a kinder, more reflective person than I am.

She sounded catty to me -- "... my old friend Matt Kramer, who must have read this particular thread (though not my own account as he confidently reported that I had painted my tongue with blue coloring) dashed off a column for that well-known oenophiles' gazette, the New York Sun ... "

Still does sound catty on reflection. But I may be too quick to judge. It's just that I haven't seen much press on the Wednesday edition of the Sun in wine lover circles.

Thanks for catching me up a bit.

Regards, Bob

I should add that I found Kramer's article not only inaccurate as Robinson points out, but quite unfair in tone as well. Sample:

Critics have always vied with one another, typically seeking to increase their own authority and influence at the expense (and disparagement) of the competition.

What’s happened recently, however, is an almost desperate attempt by some of today’s wine tasting potentates to bolster their credibility by suggesting a physical superiority, like 1950s Hollywood starlets insisting that their acting ability was inseparable from their mammary endowment. In wine’s case, it’s papillary.

This was brought home recently upon reading that Jancis Robinson, a well-regarded British wine taster, announced that she had her tongue tested and that, lo!, she is a “supertaster.” More about that in a moment.

Perhaps a bit of cattiness was in order.