The True Value of Forum Members Tasting Notes.

[Andrew Jordan]

Up in QLD tonight and stopped in at the oldies for dinner. While having Dad's signature dish, Yorkshire Pudding, roast beef, roast potatoes, vegetables and gravey , (while drinking a 2002 Saltram Mamre Brook Cabernet) Mum mentioned that she had this interesting article on wine tasting she found in one of her Psychology magazines . Though sceptical at first, I though I might as well see what Psycho-babble was contain in the article.

The research paper was from the University of Sydney intitled "Perceptual and Cognitive Aspects of Wine Expertise" printed August 2001. Most of it took a few times to read so as to understand what they were actually talking about. But one bit did spark my interest. In the paper they define wine tasters as either a Novice (someone who rarely drinks wine and knows very little about it), a Intermediate (someone who has drunk and worked with wine on a regular basis, had tasted an average of at least 5 wines per week for at least a year, but had never received any formal training) and an Expert (someone who knows a great deal about the production of wine, who has received formal training in enology, and whose profession requires frequent wine tasting).

A study was completed that showed the distinction between a Expert (ET) and a Intermediate (Ep) regarding tasting notes. The Intermediate group was compared with a group of 4th year enology students who had recently received intensive structured training in addition to their considerable experience of wine. The communication tasks consisted of matching 3 Australian Chardonnays to descriptions generated by other participants. Both groups performed above 50%, but the ET group were better at matching ET generated descriptions than the Ep group at matching Ep generated descriptions. A second matching task, given only to the Ep group, required matching wines to the consensus descriptions generated by 4 Experts trained to a high level. The Ep group now performed at a higher level than when previously matching descriptions generated by their peers.

The study analysed the descriptions generated by the particpants in order to determine what terms proved particularly useful for the matching task. Whereas many terms referred to specific features, others consisted of vague or abstract terms. Experts showed greater accuracy in component identification, i.e. detecting elements such as "floral", "vanilla" and using configural terms like "balance"or "length". It was noted in the study that to perform well on the description matching task requires both a precise and standardised vocabulary and an ability to discriminate between three very similiar wines.

Now, if you are still with me, my question. Every week we have tasting notes generously supplied by the many forum members on the wines they consumed over the weekend. From the above study, it would appear that if these tasting notes were supplied by a Novice or an Intermediate wine drinker, that another Novice or Intermediate wine drinker could not totally rely on them - our expectation of a wine based upon this tasting note could be incorrect. Unless the person supplying the tasting note was an Expert (like Halliday, Oliver, Campbell, etc), only then would we be able to better rely on the tasting note for a given wine and align it with our palate.

What do you think? Psycho-babble, just damn good research or have they discovered what the wine drinking world already knew?

AJ

[Ian S]

For me it's an interesting generalisation, but as such limited.

On this scale I'm an absolute novice, as we taste at most 2 wines a week. However I'm relatively well read, know a few aspects to look for in wine and have thought about how to express them. Perhaps I should slosh back a bottle a night to get up to intermediate standard

I suspect part of the result is down to "experts" knowing and recognising constent "buzz-words". Maybe we're generally more in tune with wine language than our consumption would suggest.

Ian

[Davo]

By the definition provided in the article I am intermediate and voted as such.

So much for more than 30 years tasting wines, and 5 years growing grapes and making wine. but no formal education in growing or making or a professional need to be tasting rules me out from being an expert.

So be it.

[Chow Chow]

Relax young man, the 1st duty of a wine is to deliver pleasure and try not to get too academic about it.

[TORB]

Based on that definition I would be an intermediate too. To the best of my knowledge, both Campbell and Halliday have never had formal training in "ecology" (let alone winemaking ) so by definition are also rated as intermediate. That alone shows the "value" of that reaserch.

FWIW, I have met some winemakers with no formal training that have fantastic palates and some who have been formally trained that have crappy palates. Also some that are blind to Brett, TCA and other faults.

The problem with this research is its stated as black and white with no shades of grey, which makes me wonder how much of an "expert" the author was in understating the subject they were writing about. Also, just as well I am not an “xspurt.” An “x” is a has been, and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

[Wizz]

I'm in the intermediate camp.

This is a good post/poll to put a perspective on the membership of this forum. In the context of the public at large, the "intermediates" might make up a few percent and the experts a tiny minority.

But here, the intermediates (self judged admittedly) are the majority.

By the definition used ni the poll question, almost everyone I taste with is an intermediate, although the variance among their palates is vast! There are some however I regard as experts with very good palates.

But however good your palate is, I still think the best part is tasting and learning!

AB

[Attila]

I sometimes write on this forum and read other people's notes carefully. There are people here whose opinion I consider when buying and there are people who are just enjoying the moment and the wine talk.
You wouldn't believe it but there are a few guys who I treat and consider experts because their notes are fantastic and their tasting experience is true.
You all know who you are.
Cheers,
Attila

[Gavin Trott]

Interesting, where would that put me?

"had tasted an average of at least 5 wines per week for at least a year"

is definitely me.

"Expert (someone who knows a great deal about the production of wine, who has received formal training in ecology, and whose profession requires frequent wine tasting)."

Firstly, surely trainng in oenology, not ecology, important though ecology undoubtedly is)

I began, but did not complete, a wine making degree at Charles Sturt Uni in the early nineties, so partial wine maker training, I must be an

intermediate expert.

Sounds pretty good eh!

[Maximus]

Perhaps under this thread topic it would be appropriate to mention how we are influenced by the tasting notes or general vibes of other forumites? As mentioned in my "International Cabernet Playoff" thread from some weeks ago, I directly addressed several forum members in the hope that I'd hear their opinions, which I value. Attila touched on this in a post above.

For NZ wines, I find it great to hear from Sue and Craig given their depth of knowledge for the nation's wines. Steve is a neverending library of resource for boutique wines in SA, Danny's knowledge of French wines (and modest tasting notes) is a welcome freshness in an Aussie wine dominated forum, and the two bigot brothers bring an honest and at times controversial twist to the goings on.

In terms of tasting notes and wine preferences, I've found from the very limited time I've been here that my own nose and palate seems to be roughly aligned with Jamie B. It can really be a gold mine to even find one person on this forum with similar tastes to your own, furthering the reality of the 'members cause' and the need for people to register and join the rest of us!

Cheers,

[Andrew Jordan]

Firstly, surely trainng in oenology, not ecology, important though ecology undoubtedly is)

Sorry for the spelling mistake , corrected now.

AJ

[KMP]

What you would need to know from this study is how many descriptors were used by each group. Its no surprise to me that the intermediate group performed at a higher level by using a consensus of terms from 4 highly trained experts as opposed to terms they generated themselves (unless they also arrived at a consensus using their terminology). The intermediate group would be more likely to use a number of terms to describe the same thing (e.g citrus might be described as lemon, lime, fruity, tangy, etc), and when given those terms to describe a wine they would most likely pick the term they personally had previously used. Given the consensus terms they may only have one choice and they would pick that closest to what they deem appropriate.

I would probably rate at the novice level in these definitions as its unlikely that I taste an average of at least 5 wines per week. Unless I attend a tasting, I only drink 3-4 wines per week

I enjoy reading the TNs of others, but (and I hope no one takes this personally), I rely almost exclusively on my own palate. The reason for this is quite simple. Almost all the tasting tables that I have a sat at have been characterized by so much individual variation in the description of any one wine that I have come to realize that consensus is reached only by debate and rarely by affirmation (unless there is a lot of brown-nosing going on).

Mike

[TORB]

I enjoy reading the TNs of others, but (and I hope no one takes this personally), I rely almost exclusively on my own palate. The reason for this is quite simple. Almost all the tasting tables that I have a sat at have been characterized by so much individual variation in the description of any one wine that I have come to realize that consensus is reached only by debate and rarely by affirmation (unless there is a lot of brown-nosing going on).

Mike you make some very good points in this post; the variances between the descriptors especially. But does it really matter if a wine is dominated by liquorish and blue bery versus aniseed and cassis for example.

The other persons TN, if reasonably accurate should provide you with a good picture of the wine. To me the biggest failing of many tasting notes (professional included) is the lack of detail about the structure and the components that make up the wine. Without those the TN is next to bloody useless IMO.

[KMP]

I enjoy reading the TNs of others, but (and I hope no one takes this personally), I rely almost exclusively on my own palate. The reason for this is quite simple. Almost all the tasting tables that I have a sat at have been characterized by so much individual variation in the description of any one wine that I have come to realize that consensus is reached only by debate and rarely by affirmation (unless there is a lot of brown-nosing going on).

Mike you make some very good points in this post; the variances between the descriptors especially. But does it really matter if a wine is dominated by liquorish and blue bery versus aniseed and cassis for example.

The other persons TN, if reasonably accurate should provide you with a good picture of the wine. To me the biggest failing of many tasting notes (professional included) is the lack of detail about the structure and the components that make up the wine. Without those the TN is next to bloody useless IMO.

Ric

I think it makes a tremendous difference whether or not the aromas of a wine are acccurately described. We perceive a greater number of aromas than the descriptors that can be described by taste. And for me much of the enjoyment (and most of the challenge) in describing a wine is to try to get as accurate a description of the aromas as I can.

I also always try to describe the structure, at least as it hits my palate. But I also think that there is almost as much variation among wine drinkers in their ability to describe structure as there is their ability to describe aroma. For me the ability to accurately determine structure is more likely to require greater wine experience than the ability to describe the presence of blueberry.

Mike

[mphatic]

Ric

I think it makes a tremendous difference whether or not the aromas of a wine are acccurately described. We perceive a greater number of aromas than the descriptors that can be described by taste. And for me much of the enjoyment (and most of the challenge) in describing a wine is to try to get as accurate a description of the aromas as I can.

I also always try to describe the structure, at least as it hits my palate. But I also think that there is almost as much variation among wine drinkers in their ability to describe structure as there is their ability to describe aroma. For me the ability to accurately determine structure is more likely to require greater wine experience than the ability to describe the presence of blueberry.

Mike

Mike,

I actually support Ric on this one. For me, the total impression of the wine is ultimately more important than a vast array of flavour descriptors. I'd much rather know whether, say for example, the chocolate flavour was overpowering, delicate, or only appearing late on the finish, rather than whether it was Lindt 70%, 85%, (or was that Valrhona, Ric??) or the extract of the rare blahblah cocoa bush native to the Ugandan town of JipJip.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising you - we can all see the enjoyment you derive from accurately describing the wine's aromas. In fact, I do get some enjoyment out of doing this myself too. But in terms of a useful tasting note, as in useful enough to make me want to go out and buy this wine, or to select this previously untasted wine as food match, it is more important for me to know about the balance, intrusive tannins, acid, palate depth, length, and whether there are distracting aromas/flavours. Rarely do I read a tasting note and think, "wow, it has blackberry, blueberry, red raspberry AND black raspberry! I should go out and buy some right now!"
More often, I'm seduced by notes that show real enthusiasm for a wine, like 'impecable balance between fruit and oak', 'awsomely long finish' and so forth. And perhaps herein lies the problem - most of these types of descriptors are somewhat subjective, compared with the (roughly) objectively described aroma and flavour descriptors.

But of what use is a clinical description of a wine, devoid of any emotional subjectivity? If this were the case, there would be one correct tasting note for each wine, and all alternative notes rejected. But we all know that everybody has different tastes, and such a system would fall over. This is where palate conditioning/alligning becomes more important. If you know the reviewers palate and descriptors well, subjectivity can, and should be tolerated. In fact, on a discussion board such as this, the subjective notes often provide much humour, enjoyable reading, and above all, healthy debate.

[Maximus]

We perceive a greater number of aromas than the descriptors that can be described by taste. And for me much of the enjoyment (and most of the challenge) in describing a wine is to try to get as accurate a description of the aromas as I can.

Mike,

I can certainly relate to you on this one. There is nothing more frustrating than smelling this one aroma - whether it be dominant or subtle - and not being able to pinpoint it. I too have a lot of fun with friends - whether they be cultured winos or simply an occassional red drinker that doesn't know a great deal about the subject. We'll sit there and sniff the nose hairs off a good red, bouncing back and forth with the general discussion of what can be smelt (and helping or correcting each other where appropriate).

Cheers,

[KMP]

Ric

I think it makes a tremendous difference whether or not the aromas of a wine are acccurately described. We perceive a greater number of aromas than the descriptors that can be described by taste. And for me much of the enjoyment (and most of the challenge) in describing a wine is to try to get as accurate a description of the aromas as I can.

I also always try to describe the structure, at least as it hits my palate. But I also think that there is almost as much variation among wine drinkers in their ability to describe structure as there is their ability to describe aroma. For me the ability to accurately determine structure is more likely to require greater wine experience than the ability to describe the presence of blueberry.

Mike

Mike,

I actually support Ric on this one. For me, the total impression of the wine is ultimately more important than a vast array of flavour descriptors. I'd much rather know whether, say for example, the chocolate flavour was overpowering, delicate, or only appearing late on the finish, rather than whether it was Lindt 70%, 85%, (or was that Valrhona, Ric??) or the extract of the rare blahblah cocoa bush native to the Ugandan town of JipJip.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising you - we can all see the enjoyment you derive from accurately describing the wine's aromas. In fact, I do get some enjoyment out of doing this myself too. But in terms of a useful tasting note, as in useful enough to make me want to go out and buy this wine, or to select this previously untasted wine as food match, it is more important for me to know about the balance, intrusive tannins, acid, palate depth, length, and whether there are distracting aromas/flavours. Rarely do I read a tasting note and think, "wow, it has blackberry, blueberry, red raspberry AND black raspberry! I should go out and buy some right now!"
More often, I'm seduced by notes that show real enthusiasm for a wine, like 'impecable balance between fruit and oak', 'awsomely long finish' and so forth. And perhaps herein lies the problem - most of these types of descriptors are somewhat subjective, compared with the (roughly) objectively described aroma and flavour descriptors.

But of what use is a clinical description of a wine, devoid of any emotional subjectivity? If this were the case, there would be one correct tasting note for each wine, and all alternative notes rejected. But we all know that everybody has different tastes, and such a system would fall over. This is where palate conditioning/alligning becomes more important. If you know the reviewers palate and descriptors well, subjectivity can, and should be tolerated. In fact, on a discussion board such as this, the subjective notes often provide much humour, enjoyable reading, and above all, healthy debate.

mphatic

I don't disagree with you (or Ric) in general terms. The ability to identify a well structured wine is one of the most important aspects in determining a quality wine. As for emotion in a tasting note I can only refer you to this post on my eBlog.

As for identification of aromas I think you will have to agree that Ric goes much more into the nuances of aroma than I do. In my tasting notes you won't find me breaking down the aroma of chocolate into percentages, rather I look for identification of pure flavors as I believe the average drinker will understand those descriptors much more readily. But in the same breath I must admit that this is a significant challenge as variations of pure flavors are often present, and these can be very difficult to describe accurately.

Mike

[GraemeG]

Well, I'm intermediate, too, of course - failing the ultimate test on formal training and ITB employment! And I'll generally vote for the 'palate structuralists' over the 'sensory evaluationists' (or 'aroma whores') per the discussion above - it does seem to be that almost anyone (given sufficient training) can get a grip on the relatively few aspects that make up the wines structure. Smelling and remembering every type of fruit in the world, cooked every kind of way, with every kind of leather polish and spice and condiment-rack thrown in as well is beyond anyone, of course.

I thought, upon reading the subject heading, you were going to ask us about the value of TN's here. It depends almost sloely on the experience of the taster, to my mind. Someone who disagrees with you on almost every wine tasted is equally useful as someone who agrees with you all the time. And the only way you can establish this is to read and compare others' TNs with your take on the same wine.

This is much easier to do when correspondents here build up over time a decent library of TNs. A note posted by 'Anonymous' is pretty useless. But someone who's got 100+ posts of TNs is giving you something to work with.

cheers,
Graeme

[Paradox]

Very interesting topic.

What I took from the first post and the quoted research was simply that formal training leads to the use of clear descriptors, which are well understood by others who have the same formal training. And that's not really surprising.

The real question is how helpful those descriptors are to others who have not been so trained (the intermediates). Again without an overall impression of the wine, they can be completely useless. As an example of (non-expert?) tasting notes, I particularly loathe the lifestyle magazine ones which describe a variety of aromas and never tell you if they actually like the wine or not.

Like many here I prefer palate calibration by looking at past tasting notes and preferences, and are more likely to be swayed by tasting notes that describe imbalance or dysharmony, or where a taster notes faults (perceived or otherwise), particularly if I know the tasters history. Or if they really, really, like the wine! Whereas a bunch of nice descriptors don't always tell me if I will like the wine.

But where the experts notes are helpful is with blind tasting. I do quite a lot of this and experts notes are very helpful here. I presume this is because here I am trying to clearly identify the varietal and regional etc components of a wine, and it matters not whether I like it or not.

Rob