Author: Melissa Priestley
Lately I’ve been a wee bit obsessed with wine language – perhaps unsurprising, given my penchant for both subjects. What set me off this time was reading a tasting note in which the critic described the wine’s aroma as “tannic.” I felt an irrepressible urge to clarify this, as it is totally incorrect.
You can’t smell tannins. Or acid. Or sugar. Or alcohol. Using any of these words to describe a wine’s aroma is wrong, plain and simple (and it marks you as an amateur). These components are only detectable on the palate, as a sensation in your mouth. Certain aromas can make you anticipate a wine to be tannic (concentrated fruit, dark chocolate) or acidic (citrus fruit, vinegar) or sweet (candied fruit, butterscotch), but it is important to note that you aren’t actually smelling these components.
Tannins are very astringent, so a tannic wine causes your mouth to go dry and feel “furry” – the same sensation caused by drinking very strong black tea (tea also has tannins). Tannins can have different qualities based on their sensation, such as dusty, chalky, or harsh.
An acidic wine causes you to salivate – the same thing that happens when you eat sour food. Acidity may also be perceived as a “sharpness” on the mouth, especially near the front edges of the tongue.
Sweetness is one of the most difficult components to correctly assess. Not only do people vary in their sensitivity to sugar, but sweetness is also offset by acidity – the more acid in the wine, the less sweet it seems. As well, wines with overly ripe fruit flavours or high alcohol content may seem sweet, but they may not actually have that much residual sugar. Be careful when stating that a wine is sweet – pay attention to the actual sensation in your mouth and feel for that cleansing acidity before you judge.
Alcohol can be detected by the nose, but not as an odour – alcohol is perceived as the sensation of heat burning your nostrils. Take a whiff of something really high in alcohol, like scotch or vodka, and you’ll see what I mean. While you can describe a wine as “hot” (high in alcohol) based on the sensation of heat in your nose, it is better judged on the palate after you exhale and notice the burning sensation in your chest and throat.
* * *
This is my last deVine blog post; in September I am departing on a different career path. I want to thank everyone (all three of you) who have read my blogs and website articles over the last two years. You can still catch my regular wine column in SEE Magazine every week.
Hi, Melissa. Thank you for your interesting blog posts and your obvious enthusiasm for wine. Thanks for all your help with the Noble RoT tastings. On behalf of myself and the Noble RoT Society, best of luck in your future pursuits!
Comment by Mike Yan — August 25, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
We are sure going to miss you around the store Mel. Your enthusiasm and upbeat personnality always make my frequent visits more fun. Even when you have been hitting the sangria all night! I feel sure we will continue to see you around….good luck in the future eh.
Comment by Bob Parsons — August 27, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
I thought it might be of interest to post my TN on an excellent Seghesio Zin purchased at the store last year. I see the `06 is on the shelf right now.
TN: `05 Seghesio Zinfandel Sonoma County.
After a horribly oaked `04 Old Vines consumed last winter (not from DeVines!), I was a tad anxious to find out how the entry-level `05 Sonoma bottling would show up!
I may be one of the many here who really admire this house, but know they have had some ups and downs. Their Zin is a big seller in restaurants here in town so lets see how it drinks.
Natural cork with phone number(!), $26 Cdn, 15.2% alc, opened and decanted for an hour.
C. More reddish-ruby than purple. Medium intense centre, light strawberry rim.
N. Some powerful aromatics here. Plum, brambleberry, licorice. No mocha this time around.
P. Initial mouthfeel entry is smooth, soft integrated tannins, black berries, raspberry. Much more my idea of a good zin with elegance quite apparent. Lighter body than the Rancho I posted on. Good balance, no heat, trace of white pepper as it airs. Dry, still has hint of oak with a lasting lingering finish. Did not notice the high alc here.
It all comes together pretty nicely and I look forward to tasting the `06.
*** not much evolvement overnight, could not find any chocolate. Nice though.
Comment by Bob Parsons — August 28, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Michael and Bob, thank you both for your kind farewells. I’m sure you will undoubtedly see me around the store – I’m not going to be far away…and I’m addicted to tasty wine.
Good tasting note Bob – I just went through a Zinfandel kick myself. It was nice to get rid of my stereotypes about the stuff; it can be quite delicious. I especially liked the 2003 Kunde Century Vines Zinfandel – great structure. Seems like the Sonoma Zins are turning out better than those from Napa…
Comment by Mel — August 28, 2008 @ 10:04 am
I have enjoyed the blog and your articles. Good luck in your new endeavors.
I’d like to comment on the sense of community that deVine shares with its clients and friends. I think the staff and have developed relationships which make the business unique. You seem to all know each other on a first name basis.
In Vancouver, we have a few neighborhood stores. I can’t say that we shop in any of them on a regular basis. Wine shopping is not all about loyalty or commitment to any one store, but I think I’d be more inclined to frequent a place that has a personal relationship with me.
Even though you are leaving deVine, you’re still part of a community.
Comment by lmarkin — September 1, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Talking of tannins, I purchased the Casa Silva from Devines for an internet tasting. Hopefully some bloggers here will enjoy my notes.
TN: `06 Casa Silva Carmenere Gran Reserva Los Lingues, Colchagua V.
Good natural cork, $24 Cdn, 14.5% alc, opened and decanted for an hour. No sediment noted.
Color. Deep rich crimson/purple, just like Harry O`s grape juice! Has a medium intense centre, can just see thumb outline through the glass when tilted.
Nose. Day 1 is instant cherry when I pour to decanter. Some raspberry as it opens and warms (I had slightly chilled). Has some floral tones and tad savoury from the oak. At first I thought nose was closed up, its not that oaky to me however. Developed some herbal notes over 2 hrs but no “green olives/peppers”.
Day 2 has a big change. An almost mesquite-smoked aroma with green peppercorns. Some staff found it “exotic..wooden plank”. Thought interesting comments.
Palate. Initial entry thoughts were softish tannins, blackberry, excellent acidity, some oak but no vanilla. I did not find too many green tones here at all but on the finish some squeezed out tea bag tannin. There is a hint of sweetness after an hour in the glass, along with some more plum and cherry.
Anastasia thought “not the most supple/easy-to-drink red I have had lately”. Definately needs more time to develope some of that blackberry fruit as well as chocolate tone.
On the second day, found loganberries but one person thought finish a tad short? Could not agree there as it filled out nicely on day 2.
So analysis over! Very nice Carmenere that is a bit young maybe. I sure would never think merlot here in the glass!
Comment by Bob Parsons — September 2, 2008 @ 10:09 pm