Sight Unseen

RE: Sight Unseen

user4257 — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 01:59:25 GMT

I am continually intrigued by how our minds wrestle with the concept of "blind" tasting. Specifically, what i find most intriguing is that our methodology seeks to ascribe a somewhat objective value to a process focused on subjective interpretations. What I mean by this is we are not looking to determine the ph. level of a wine or to train with the help of a mass spectrometer but to communicate as correctly as possible to a guest what we perceive their interpretation of the wine will be. It's maddeningly imprecise in practice yet remarkably profiecient for the task at hand. As a extreme left brained individual and a total nerd my method of reconsiling this dichotomy is to see it as a form of Kantian dialectic. "Seeking no longer to offer rules for executing convincing judgements, but rather to teach others how to detect and uncover judgements which bear a semblance of truth but are in fact illusory."

RE: Sight Unseen

user6636 — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:28:27 GMT

Such great information - I would never have thought of using a visual scale as an assist in tasting, yet its introduction would clearly help reinforce the mental image of the wine... But of course the real gem in your piece Master Gaiser is the truly magnificent Beavis and Butthead reference - bravo!

RE: Sight Unseen

user2780 — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:09:28 GMT

Tim, great stuff! I thoroughly enjoyed your seminar on Neuroscience of Wine Tasting as well.

RE: Sight Unseen

user4303 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:22:36 GMT

Great stuff Tim. Another very helpful post.

RE: Sight Unseen

user6934 — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:35:24 GMT

Thanks!! So many visual and pysiological elements to consider. I have mine flying through my head right now.

RE: Sight Unseen

user2102 — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:29:15 GMT

It's always interesting to see how there are so many approaches to tasting; the key is finding what works for you. For me, I tend to simplify assessing levels of alcohol, tannin and acidity. I simply use elevated and depressed. It is only important to me, in identification of the wine, if it is noticeably elevated or noticeably lacking. I find too many people miss wines based on an assessment of medium or medium plus and take that too much into consideration, since these levels range depending on the specific wine. However, evated or depressed levels of structure can be a big clue.

I tend to focus more on the objective elements that define varietalal character such as Terpines, Pyrozines, and Phenols, combined with apparent fruit ripeness and condition, as well as winemaking practices .I find I can get to almost every classic wine using this technique. However, I am generally not very good at exact vintage identification.

RE: Sight Unseen

user2224 — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:38:11 GMT

Hi Andrey, the context for structural elements like residual sugar, acid and alcohol are the same for whites or reds is the same. Concentration for the visual is simply a question of how much and how deep the color is in the glass. Hope this helps.

RE: Sight Unseen

user6691 — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:20:05 GMT

I never thought about using such a definite, internal visual structure. Thank you for this interesting and helpful rundown! It reminds me of techniques suggested in Moonwalking with Einstein--which, if y'all haven't read, you SHOULD. Super helpful techniques for memorizing... definitely more effective than rote.

RE: Sight Unseen

user4794 — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:08:05 GMT

Thanks Tim! I was wondering if you (or anyone else reading along) could answer a point of debate in our group. We judge acid, alcohol, and tannins on the same scale for reds as whites. After all, if something is 15% alcohol it is considered high no matter if its red or white. Is that the same case for concentration on the visual assessment? Are we comparing the entire lexicon of wines on the same scale, if so can a white wine ever be high in concentration? Thanks much.