Posts by category

RedWhiteBoston's Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Pros and Cons: Tasting Note Versus Story Telling

  
  
  
  
  

I understand wine best when it’s in a context. That is, when I know the producer or the story of the wine, or when I’m with a group of friends and we’re drinking it during a meal. No wine is an island, so to speak.

So when I was asked to write tasting notes for a series of wines, I was intrigued by the challenge. I’d be expected to write a formal note – commenting on the wine’s appearance, nose, palate, conclusion – which I’m fully prepared to do.

(Thank you, WSET and Boston University.)

Yet when I write about wine, it is much more often in context than as a note. You could see it as the difference between prose and phrases.

 It definitely requires a shifting of gears. I set some ground rules:

  • I didn’t read anyone else’s notes on the wines before I tried them, not even the winemaker’s.
  • I took lots of time with each wine. That is, I certainly noted initial impressions but I also “hung around” the wines and came back to them, one after another, to see what else they had to say.
  • I did know what the wines were before I tried them, that is, I knew one was a 2008 Chard, another a 2007 Merlot, etc. I am curious how my evaluation would be different if I didn’t know that basic information.
  • Looking back over the more structured format of tasting notes enabled an effective comparison that isn’t quite possible using “context or narrative terminology.” That is, my tasting notes told me the tannin and acid flip-flopped when I tasted two Napa Cabs from the same producer in the same vintage; the difference was the vineyard location, which starts a domino effect of considerations such as slope, soil, sunlight, ripeness, etc. If I were writing “in context” I’d have noticed the difference in the wines but I’d have tended to attribute it more to, say, what I was eating with them rather than wine production factors per se.

Describing a wine as having “a pale ruby rim” is much different than describing it as “the same color as my steak done medium rare.” Describing another wine as “full-bodied with a long finish” is much different than saying “this is a wine with presence.” But, in my language, I mean the same thing.

A tasting note is its own story. Writing more of them, I suspect, may improve my narrative abilities overall but it will most definitely improve my understanding.

What do you think? Comment below and join the conversation!

Comments

Depends on your audience. Hard terms like rim variation are used by professional and folks who aspire to have professional wine careers. For them an alternative might not resonate and they may not hold your review capability in the regard that is should. On the flip side marketing wine to people who don't approach it technically or believe it shouldn't be done that way, might like a story better.  
 
 
 
Just like badges, there is no single answer. There are multiple answers used to fit the different consumers in your audience. 
 
 
 
Jason
Posted @ Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:01 PM by Jason Phelps
I completely agree that there is a contextual component in wine tasting. In wine evaluation I attempt to remove the contextual component and focus on the evidence in the glass. (Which is why I taste wine rather than evaluate at a dinner party -rude!)Wine notes that tell a story are fine for a personal recall. I always applaud consumers who take notes and to each his own. However, to have meaningful communication with another taster it is helpful to have a common vocabulary like we use at BU and at other programs like the WSET. "A wine with presence" might mean something very different to me than it does to someone else. However, full bodied wine with alcohol of 14%, intense, complex, concentrated aromas...tells me a more complete story. In my opinion, when you approach wine evaluation in a systematic way you can train yourself to assess all of the components of the wine rather than those which are most noteworthy. This way you get the full story rather than the crib notes so to speak. But.....I think you knew I would say that! 
 
Cheers
Posted @ Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:55 AM by Stacy Woods
Thank you, Stacy! I completely agree on the value of having a common vocabulary to communicate with other tasters. Let me ask you also -- what do you think is the right balance to strike when you're writing reviews for a sale site, such as the reviews I've started doing for Drync? (Today's blog post announced this partnership.) That is, some readers/buyers will be other tasters who "get" the common vocabulary, but others will be general consumers who would like to be drawn in by context or common experience. 
 
What's your advice on striking the right balance? 
 
Thank you!
Posted @ Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:40 PM by Cathy Huyghe
Hi Jason! You're right. There is no single answer. I'd love to hear your advice on writing for the specific audience of Drync.com's consumers who will buy wines online via their boutique sales? (The blog post from today announced this partnership.)
Posted @ Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:44 PM by Cathy Huyghe
I think one of the beautiful things about using a common vernacular is that the terms are limited, simple, and easy to understand. However, from a marketing standpoint it can pretty boring if you read medium acidity, medium astringency, medium body blah blah blah. When you are trying to "sell" a wine with a tasting note I still think the best descriptors are simple and universal i.e. aromatic floral, or citrus,gem colored ruby red or amethyst, crisp mouthwatering acidty, slight astringency offers structure. The worst tasting notes sound like the class dork that overused 50 cent words to impress the teacher in high school. Keep it simple. Congrats on the new partnership!
Posted @ Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:07 PM by stacy woods
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics