A little of this . . .

[Florida Jim]

2001 Artadi, Rioja Viñas de Gain:

Warm cherry and leather scents; soft, somewhat diffuse on the palate with flavors that echo the nose but toss in a bright black pepper accent on the finish which is of medium length. Very integrated, smooth and quaffable but I see no future here. Drink today.

1999 Paloma, Syrah:

Reticent on both the nose and palate with solid syrah fruit and little complexity. ‘Nothing wrong with it but nothing to excite.

2002 A. et P. De Villaine, Bourgogne La Digoine:

Reluctant nose with red fruit and wax scents; lightweight on the palate but intense flavors of cherries and other pit fruits mix with a light earthy-spice tone, extraordinary balance, focused; medium length finish. Quite something – clean, clear pinot noir that could come only from Burgundy. Delicious.

1999 Bruno Giacosa, Nebbiolo d’Alba:

This wine is more polished and fruit driven than a recent tasting of the ‘01 Valmaggiore bottling with clean, juicy fruit on the nose and palate, an easy to drink texture and medium length finish. Nice but does not carry the complexity I am looking for.

1998 Sertoli Salis, Valtellina Superiore Corte della Meridiana:

This is the sforsato from Salis and while it has a similar aromatic and flavor profile to Amarone, it only has 13.5% alcohol and lacks its weight and body. We paired this with an Italian sheep and cow’s milk cheese called “Bosina” and it was the perfect accompaniment. A savory, somewhat idiosyncratic wine with a spicy side.

Best, Jim

[Hopleaf]

This might sound nitpicky or like I'm trying to be a troublemaker, but I'm curious what you see the difference, if any, is between "reticent" and "reluctant."

Or is this simply a case of looking for the right word and not wanting to sound redundant?

Plus, I wonder if you can expound upon how you're using these terms? Is a reticent or reluctant nose one that you find lacking? If so, is this in comparison to other wines? Is there a certain level of nose that you expect?

Also, how could the bourgogne be "lightweight on the palate" and yet also have "intense cherry flavors" at the same time?

I'm just deleloping my tasting abilities, but they're pretty limited and when I read something like what you've presented here, I'm always struck by the words and descriptors used. A lot of the time I'm wondering what the hell I missed. But I'm slowly seeing that developing this sense is a slow process of pealing off layers upon layers of inability.

[Florida Jim]

Or is this simply a case of looking for the right word and not wanting to sound redundant?

Exactly.

Plus, I wonder if you can expound upon how you're using these terms? Is a reticent or reluctant nose one that you find lacking? If so, is this in comparison to other wines? Is there a certain level of nose that you expect?

Lacking in intensity and therefore, difficult to describe otherwise. I suppose you could say that is in comparison to other wines but that is not what I'm thinking when I smell the wine or write about it. I just don't smell much.

Also, how could the bourgogne be "lightweight on the palate" and yet also have "intense cherry flavors" at the same time?

I distinguish between weight in the mouth and strength of flavor. A wine does not have to be texturally lush or weighty to have a vivid flavor profile. For myself, I prefer that wines have less weight and more flavor.

I'm just deleloping my tasting abilities, but they're pretty limited and when I read something like what you've presented here, I'm always struck by the words and descriptors used. A lot of the time I'm wondering what the hell I missed. But I'm slowly seeing that developing this sense is a slow process of pealing off layers upon layers of inability.

Agreed. But I think it is also about gaining confidence in your ability (however you describe that ability).

And I would suggest that, since we are talking about subjective perceptions, the adjectives we use will be value loaded in accord with our own histories and preferences. There is no standardized language of description any more than there is a single standard for what is good or bad.

Personally, I try to convey a feeling I have when tasting the wine rather than any type of reliable analytic description. But that's my way; I'm sure others do it differently.

Best, Jim

Edited February 17, 2005 by Florida Jim (log)

[Hopleaf]

I distinguish between weight in the mouth and strength of flavor. A wine does not have to be texturally lush or weighty to have a vivid flavor profile. For myself, I prefer that wines have less weight and more flavor.

ok, so sort of like how a shiraz has that nearly cloying weight to it but can at the same time show off noticeable berry flavors that aren't necessarily part of that sticky sweetness?

[Florida Jim]

I distinguish between weight in the mouth and strength of flavor. A wine does not have to be texturally lush or weighty to have a vivid flavor profile. For myself, I prefer that wines have less weight and more flavor.

ok, so sort of like how a shiraz has that nearly cloying weight to it but can at the same time show off noticeable berry flavors that aren't necessarily part of that sticky sweetness?

←

More like how shiraz can have that cloying weight whereas a Lafarge, Bourgogne looks thin and feels weightless in the mouth and yet has all this bursting flavor of cherries and earth. Point being, weight and intense flavor need not coexist in the same wine.

Between milk-shake and water for weight; between water and bourbon for flavor.

BTW, some people define "concentration" to include weight and texture - I don't. To me its about how strong the flavors are; that's the kind of concentration I look for.

But this whole discussion reminds me that one can not describe how beautiful the Mona Lisa is; we are using amorphus concepts that say more about the viewer or taster than about the painting or wine.

Best, Jim

Edited February 18, 2005 by Florida Jim (log)