Most useless wine descriptor

Post Reply
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

I nominate "purity." This one I've always found meaningless as typically used and this morning I was reminded of it:

93-95 Points, Robert Parker's Wine Advocate: "The Château Pape Clément 2014 is a blend of 57.5% Merlot, 37.5% Cabernet Sauvignon and 5% Petit Verdot picked from 24 September until 20 October. It is matured in 60% new oak. Strangely, first sniff of the nose whisks you away to the Côtes de Nuits, such is its purity."

So I guess Burgs usually are "pure" and Bordeaux isn't. Thanks for that.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by DavidG »

What the heck does that mean? It's such a pure example of a Pessac Merlot/Cab blend that the nose makes you think Cotes de Nuits Pinot Noir? Huh??? Not sure I would blame the word as much as the person who used it.

But I can still support your nomination as "purity" is almost always interpretable so many ways as to be meaningless. For example: What makes wine most interesting is its lack of purity: its complexity.
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by Chateau Vin »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:
93-95 Points, Robert Parker's Wine Advocate: "The Château Pape Clément 2014 is a blend of 57.5% Merlot, 37.5% Cabernet Sauvignon and 5% Petit Verdot picked from 24 September until 20 October. It is matured in 60% new oak. Strangely, first sniff of the nose whisks you away to the Côtes de Nuits, such is its purity."
"The HWSRN is a blend of 57.5% Fruit aficionado, 37.5% Price Mover and 5% High Glycerin Lover, picked from 2000 until 2015. And is matured with 16% alcohol. Strangely, first handshake with him whisks you away to Parkerization, such is his purity."
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by DavidG »

:lol:
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AKR »

I thought purity was another way of saying typicite but I guess not if that's the context from the note.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

Seemed HWSRN often lauded a wine's "stunning purity." Since I don't recall ever seeing a tasting note describing a wine as "impure" or "having impurities" I still don't know what this means. Obviously in the literal sense a wine could have impurities. But I have always accepted the use of the term pure simply to mean that the taster liked the wine a lot. As for discernment between wines it hardly seems helpful.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by JimHow »

Now you got me analyzing why I called the 2012 LLC "pure."
It was "seamless" (another useless wine descriptor?).
It seemed to have "no hard edges." (More useless descriptors?)
It seemed the epitome of LLC "breed" and "class." (More?)
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by Blanquito »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:I nominate "purity." This one I've always found meaningless as typically used and this morning I was reminded of it
I second the nomination. Jeb Dunnuck loves this one as a "good thing", but why purity is good or bad is a mystery.
User avatar
RDD
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by RDD »

A lot of wine descriptors are not quantifiable.
UC Davis is/was big on purity. What is consider a characteristic in French wines is considered a flaw here in the US.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by Blanquito »

RDD wrote:A lot of wine descriptors are not quantifiable.
UC Davis is/was big on purity. What is consider a characteristic in French wines is considered a flaw here in the US.
Yeah, I always suspect that when someone says "purity", they really mean no detectable brett.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by JimHow »

Pierre Lurton describes 2011 d'Yquem as "pure":

http://www.jamessuckling.com/bordeaux-2 ... yquem.html
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

It certainly isn't the least used. I just said (meant) it was the least useful. I get it that it can be meant to refer to an absence of brett, specifically, or an absence of other defined impurities generally or to a lack of sanitation or cleanliness. That's fine. But if I'm wrong that it is not widely used in some other very nebulous and subjective manner (as in the quote from Neal Martin) that is saying something simply like "wow, this is really good" or is not misused to describe more readily and properly describable attributes (be they considered by some as flaws or not--so for example VA, "green" tannins, stemmyness or whatever is your pet peeve) then I'll withdraw my objection. Also my intention was not to be validated in my thinking as much to see if anyone else had some common tasting terms they found odd, dumb or of little help.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by Blanquito »

How about "inner mouth" for dumb/odd?
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

"Inner mouth" or "inner mouth energy" I was holding back. Of course that one struck me as odd but also it is so naive-sounding (odd in itself considering the source) that it is lol-endearing. It's the opposite of the "thesaurus of wine I have to taste 100 wines today and say some seeming unique combination of words about each one" kind of cynical school of wine tasting.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AKR »

when I think of a good way to describe 'purity' if my understanding is actually now correct -- it would be the way that some chefs are able to use vacuum technology to create non boiled but more extracted versions of fruits and vegetables. sort of like reverse osmosis technology. but on things like watermelon or cucumber. intense pure flavors of the respective fruit/vegetables.
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlexR »

I respectfully disagree about the word "purity".

Like many aspects of taste, it is hard to describe but as Supreme Court Jusice Potter Stewart said in 1964 to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

So, minerality, purity, and other words that others critize are apt descriptors to me because they I can relate to, as well as many - if not most - others.

Ultimately, however, what counts in tasting notes is the taster's terminology, even if no one else understands, he does - and that's what counts!

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by DavidG »

It depends on who you are writing TNs for, Alex. In a TN written for myself, it matters not if I use some term that is meaningless to others. But if I'm a critic, using a term that means different things to different people is indeed useless unless there is further explanation. And while Potter Stewart may have known pornography when he saw it, the reason that case ended up in front of him was that different people had different definitions of what it was. Your purity may not be my purity.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by stefan »

I most often apply pure to single varietal wines, especially pinot noir, to indicate the the varietal flavor dominates (so a smoky or candied fruit pinot noir is not pure).
User avatar
Claudius2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:07 am
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by Claudius2 »

Stefan
If the term is used for a blended wine, I have always thought that the flavours are predominantly fruit based, rather than winemaker or wood derived.
yet I agree it is rather amorphous as a term.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by Jeff Leve »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:I nominate "purity." This one I've always found meaningless as typically used and this morning I was reminded of it:
I disagree on this. Purity is a good descriptor. I use it often. it is quite popular in Bordeaux as well. "Purity is a good thing in a wine, and hard to find. Wine with purity allow the true expression of the fruit to come through. Think of tasting a sweet, ripe berry off the vine." http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/win ... wine-terms
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlexR »

David,
Of course, you are correct in stating "Your purity might not be my purity".
But doesn’t that apply to nearly all descriptors once we step outside the most basic terms?

Amazingly, I actually find myself agreeing with Jeff Leve here.
Will wonders never cease?

(by the way, Jeff, please refer to my mise au point about Beychevelle on the Berserker’s board).

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by JimHow »

At just about every estate we visited I dropped the name of a wine writer or two to see what kind of response I'd get.

Bob Parker? Mixed response.

Neil Martin? No real response yet.

Jim Suckling? Ridicule, sometimes outright laughter.

Jeff Leve? Overwhelmingly positive. "He's a nice guy," one or two of them said.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by DavidG »

Jeff is a nice guy. Very positive, generous, friendly, and if you read his notes he is obviously enthusiastic about Bordeaux. He's like a great announcer for the local college team: you can call him a "homer" but he really knows his stuff. It's no wonder that the locals like him.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Most useless wine descriptor

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

OK what am I bid for most "misued" wine descriptor? Clearly a Bord that smells like a Burg is not therefore "pure". Or is it just me? I don't think this is the only evidence of the careless use of the term. And NM is not exactly a rookie. And I'll gladly receive for consideration published notes by recognized wine critics describing a wine as tasting, smelling, or seeming "impure." Thanks. BTW I come at this from the perspective of a "consumer" of wine descriptors. I can understand if the viewpoints of "producers" of wine descriptors may differ from mine.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 6 guests