Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Hi,

In a word yes. Match the following wines with the descriptions:

Is it Two Buck Chuck or Grands Echezeaux DRC?

More "inimitable" than "indispensible". ...contains "notes of graphite, black currant liqueur, incense, and camphor." "...a model of weightless finesse."

Is it Fat Bastard or La Montrachet?

"full, fruity, pleasing, refreshing and dry"

Now how hard was that? "On Wine Bullshit" is a treatise on BS but does not discuss the olfactory or taste of the more full bodied of those materials.

Slate has the humorous article, "Ridiculous wine descriptors may reveal more about a bottle's price than its flavor"

We are aware of the differences between blind tastings, double blind and triple blind tastings. It seems that reviewers should be limited to triple blind tastings, if only to discover the hidden tobacco and spicy terroir of that Carlo Rossi Burgandy.

CC

One of my favorite tasters at the NYT has this to say about that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/dining/23pour.html?_r=2&ref=style

When I was in school we had a LOT of wine education. To help develop my ability to discern wine aromas I bought Le Nez du Vin. It truly did help, and we occasionally now use it for fun when we have tasting flights with friends.

Amy

I'm with the naysayers here: I generally find wine descriptions completely useless. They all sound the same. And everything goes great with steak and salmon.

I got a gift subscription to the Wine Spectator one year, and the only part I read was the list of best buys. I could never make it through any wine article more than around 10 lines before my eyes glazed over. I find that's not true of articles about food, beer, or whisky -- just wine. And I don't even like whiskey.

What I want to know about a wine is:

• Is it dry or sweet?
• Strong flavored or subtle?
• Tannic, acidic, or fruity?
• Heavy or light?

Tell me that. Don't tell me if tastes like leather and tobacco. That's disgusting, as well as disingenuous.

The SF Ferry Building Wine Company uses their own classification system which they mark the bays with, which is fairly similar to the above. I like it.

I think, more than anything, wine descriptions have a direct relationship to how much the writer was paid per inch.

Respectfully, I disagree. I've certainly had wines that smell of things like leather, tobacco, and yes, even dirt.

If you come to Denver I'll bring Le Nez du Vin as well as some wines which fall into this category and let you judge for yourself. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to what people smell in wines.

Amy

Hi,

I have strong beliefs about the following wine tasting concepts:

1. A blind tasting yields simple descriptors.

2. An open tasting places the wines in order of cost.

3. The purchaser of the expensive "corked" wine cannot smell compost.

4. The friends of the above purchaser think terroir (ie: compost) disappears as the wine opens up.

5. A properly shaped and sized wine glass is better than Grandma's 3 ounce stem.

6. A test of glass shapes only works if the glass is blind.

Personal experiences continue to reinforce these beliefs.

CC (not a super taster!)

Amy,

There's a big difference between you (or me) smelling specific things in wines we're drinking, and Robert Parker (or the wine label) telling me what I ought to smell/taste.