What I am writing may well be controversial, yet controversial ones are normally the best topics.
Admittedly, I have been a victim, or more so a bearer for the flag embroidered with wine 'prescriptivism'. Or as my pre-pre-descessors like to call 'Wine Bollocks'.
With a few acquaintances with a very knowledgeable, experienced fellow wine lover and a bottle of Pinot Noir, the idea that not even a wine critic's notes should be taken seriously was one that interested us. As the tale goes: 'Tasting are written when the barrel is half empty and the writer is completely full'. From this, I mean not that wine critics are known to be drunks - of course not - but more that the notes should be used as guidelines. Just as much as mine should.
Raspberries or toast or lychees may well be prominent flavours in wine, they may well be the flavours the winemaker intended, but - without getting too heavy - taste is psychological. Taste is linked to memory.
My advice? When drinking wine, whether it be a Blossom Hill or a St Emillion, just take a moment to think what it actually tastes of. Shut your eyes if necessary. Remember when you were a kid and you ate strawberries and worms in the garden? Well if the Chianti or Rioja tastes like your memory of worms; say it tastes of worms!
A colleague once described a blind tasting of a South African Cabernet blend as 'a gay secret'. After one more sip, we all agreed. It made complete sense. What should be a stern, heavy wine was displaying a lot of strawberries and floral notes. Not only could we not stop laughing, but the sincerity of the daunting blind tastings were diminished.
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't hold back, feel free to say what you like about the wine, after all, if you like it, then it's a good wine. Regardless of it's status or ratings.
Yes, describing wine is what I do, but what I hope to achieve is a more open community to the experimentation of wine and the realisation that wine is so much more than the 'second on the list' job.
