in defense of terse [wine] communication

This old article by Jamie Goode, happily republished in The Science of Wine, discusses a few factors worth considering while we, as lay consumers or educated insiders, sip our wines and flip through the latest point spread of our favourite wine rag. On first reading, my gut reaction was to hold up the piece in triumph, to happily proclaim that we should finally be free of the shackles of overzealous, Tolstoy-inspired reviews that take up half a page. After all, here are actual Doctors who've spent decades specialising on areas of the body that could fit in the palm of a hand. It's a hard thing, trying to step down from a soap box so happily placed in front of you. However, there is information not included or addressed by Goode.

There's no mention, for example, of considering the changes that take place in a wine as it oxidises in the glass. If any human can only identify up to four distinct odours, be they single molecules or combinations thereof, at what point does the evolution of the oxidising wine reset this small value? If I've returned to the same wine every 5 minutes for the past 30 minutes, am I, as to me the article suggests, simply a victim of my own free-association? Am I imagining that the wine's nose went from tar and sage to leather and blacker fruits? Or, perhaps my olfactory epithelium has been desensitised to the more prominent aromas, which leaves me free to "look" at other components previously overwhelmed, held under the blanket by Tar while Sage gave them a few lumps.

As well, how does this one, surprisingly low, number apply so evenly across three different genetic groups? If it appears that super-tasters may have greater taste and retronasal abilities (thresholds?), it seems out of place that they should be confined to this same average ability. Of thresholds, do these three groups also display differing thresholds of perception and identification beyond bitterness, or are their distinctions limited more to levels of intensity? If a friend is a super-taster and I'm a medium-taster, will they taste the whole jar of strawberry jam while I get only a lick at the jam spoon? Perhaps it's more accurate to suggest that they taste the jar in all its strawberry glory, while I fuddle around with a flavour I can only describe as "cooked fruit".

The research Goode has done is tremendous, as he demonstrates just how little we know about wine and our interaction with it. I have a lot of respect for what work of his I've read (his Wine Bottle Closures is in the reading queue beside my bed), and on a personal level I agree with the closing question posed by his article. I too think there's much overuse of flowery and, worse, imprecise language used to describe wines - please, if anyone out there can define good acidity to me, I'd be eternally grateful. Likewise, wouldn't it be more useful to see a tasting note that clearly addressed levels of acidity, alcohol, and tannin structure rather than being preoccupied with whether the berry character is raspberry, blackberry, or loganberry?

That debate I doubt will ever fade, but in the meantime, I'm happy to keep reading. Doing so provides a chance to examine my own assumptions, experiences, and conclusions, and I find myself less likely to cling madly to an idea when it's challenged. That's a comforting feeling.