"Liz, would you say this is a 'good' wine?"
"Um...I like the smell of grass, but it's a bit too dry for me. My mouth is watering. (Can I have some water?)"
"Actually, it doesn't matter whether or not you like the wine."
Ouch. That seemed hurtful, but Molly the instructor continued on. "A description discussing whether or not you like a wine is a 'hedonistic' description. I'm asking for an objective description of the wine and an objective answer as to whether or not it's good."
It was 8:30PM on a Thursday evening. I was about 8 wines (or a glass and a half) deep, not realizing that the expectation in wine tasting class is that students will sip, swish and spit out wine after tasting it. I had signed up for the Wine & Spirit Education Trust ("WSET") intermediate wine education class at the Capitol Wine School in Washington DC. My Google search led me to conclude that this was the best class for me since I aimed to generally expand my wine appreciation. The course surveyed wines from around the world, covered the most notable wine growing regions--and it included actual tasting of wines (the lynchpin of the course structure as far as I was concerned). This was my first class, and though I already felt behind, the tipsiness from the tastings and the quiet dehydration from the classroom's recycled air kept me excited and in the game.
My wine classmates were an interesting lot. If they weren't in the 'industry,' they were certainly closer than I was. Laurel's family is starting a winery, which she plans to manage. Andrea is an assistant pastry chef at a bakery that I've actually heard of. Jules is a sous chef--and she came to class wearing her white chef's coat. Wow.
Molly, the instructor, handed out sheets of paper that listed several parameters of description in big bold letters, next to wide blank spaces. Wine Mad Libs? I was hopeful.
- COLOR/APPEARANCE: [huge space]
- NOSE: [huge space]
- PALATE: [huge space]
- QUALITY: [huge space]
Instructor Molly discussed these and the possible descriptors that we should use as she poured our first wine (WOOHOO! finally--the tasting portion), a Syrah (a.k.a. Shiraz). She explained that Syrah is a dark-skinned grape grown throughout the world (France, Australia and other places) and used primarily to produce powerful red wines. It can be blended with other wines or used 'straight-up' to make Syrah "varietal" wine (i.e. a wine made with only one type of grape. NOTE: I used to think that people who said the word "varietals" were individuals whom I would just never befriend. However, I humbly have learned that there is a difference in meaning between the word "varieties" and the more pretentious sounding "varietals"--so people who use the latter aren't just trying too hard to jump a few class levels. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.).
As we sipped (and some others of us spit), she told us to fill out our Mad Libs--I mean tasting "notes." Had she looked over my shoulder while circulating the room, she would have seen the following:
- COLOR: beet color (purple/red)
- NOSE: intense; flavors of sour blueberry pie, dried plums, steer manure,forest fire and wood chips or beaver
- PALATE: sour/vinegary; some acidity; some tannins; round body; same flavors as nose plus worcestershire sauce and steak
- QUALITY: Not a fan
As Jules the real chef read aloud her description of the wine, I internally applauded myself for how much more interesting mine was. (Compare the above to: "Medium Nose; Flavors of red fruits, plum and leather; medium acidity; low to medium tannins; medium body...") I mean--wasn't that the point? (To get as creative and flamboyant with adjectives as possible?) I felt awesome.
However, no, I was wrong. Ca-razy descriptors is actually the opposite of the point of the "systematic approach" to wine tasting, which Molly was trying to teach. When tasting wine, Molly explained, it's proper to choose descriptors from a list of about 200-300 key terms that are considered standard. Describing a level of degree, use "low," "medium" or "high/full." When describing flavors, stick with the suggestions written in the textbooks ("red fruits," "cherries," "plum," "smoke," "leather," "yeast"...). I looked over the seemingly short words and phases. While I was happy to see that there were a laudable amount of adjectives provided, "forest fire" and "worcestershire sauce" did not appear to be listed. Sigh.
"These adjectives may seem dull to some of you, I know. But the point of this approach is to have a universally used set of terms in describing wine. That way, the same description of a wine can be understood by a lot of people." (Instructor Molly, you are a mind reader.) I was determined to adapt.
We went through 6 more tastings (Reisling, Gewurztrainer, Pinot Grigio, Nebbbiolo...). Finally, it was my turn to read my tasting notes. It seemed ironic that my turn coincided with the most douchey of douchey-sounding wines: "Chateauneuf-de-Pape" (hahahahah--it's hard to not laugh when I think of people saying the name out loud). But, I kept a straight face, tried my hardest to imagine Helen Mirren rather than John Stuart, and read aloud: "The color is deep purple; the nose is...medium intense (is that right phrasing?); I smell fennel, vegetables, grass, animal and rubber..and tar..." After a few minor corrections, I felt pretty OK. Then: "Liz, what about the quality?" From here, the conversation about hedonism ensued. Instructor Molly explained: "the Quality of a wine describes whether or not it's a good example of a typical wine of its kind. In this case, is this good Chateauneuf-de-Pape?" (hahahah-EEK) I ventured "yes" (assuming they wouldn't serve us a crappy--or "low quality"--wine sample in wine school. Molly: "Correct." YAY!
The rest of the class went smoothly. I went into the session thinking that there isn't a wrong way to describe wine, but I found out there actually is. I also learned that my nose and palate are not calibrated the way of the the WSET Level 2 test and my levels of sensitivity are totally off. I thought most of the 10 wines we tasted had high acidity--only 1 did, the rest were low and medium. I also had difficulty matching the color of most of the wines to the proper color on the WSET approved color chart, but I started getting better with that.
There was one thing with which I need serious help: my sensitivity for sweetness. On my Mad Libs, I characterized most of the class wines as "dry" and would have chosen "super dry" if that had been an option (it's not currently approved). As it turns out, the sugar receptors on the tip of my tongue can't pick up sweetness unless sugar level of a wine is at or above that of a Swedish Fish. Instructor Molly asked if I eat a lot of candy. "Well, not really, I mean maybe. [Then I thought of the pack of Percy Pigs I inhaled before walking down the aisle a few weeks ago at my wedding] Actually, yeah I do." She suggested try the following: sip a cup of plain black tea...then add a teaspoon of sugar and try to sense any difference...then 2 teaspoons and so on. I am dubious as to wether I'll be able to taste any difference before 0.2 cups of sugar, but am slightly hopeful. I'll definitely let you know how this goes.
First tasting class is a wrap. Vinetality or bust!
PS: I'm putting together a wine 'cheat sheet' for my WSET Level 2 test using my class notes and the much wiser words of Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment