WSET Exam

Tomorrow I will sit my WSET Advanced Exam. This will be the culmination of 15 weeks of lectures, tasting of 125+ wins in class (and plenty more outside of class), reading and rereading a serious text book, and loads of studying of flash-cards. The test consists of a multiple choice section, a short answer/essay portion and a blind wine tasting portion. I'm slightly intimidated by the material, and confused by the diversity and complexity of it all. I'm about as prepared as I'll be for the exam tomorrow night, and I can't help but think about the value of all of it.

I can say that the WSET program offers a fairly comprehensive view of the wine world. It's clear that the perspective of the course is from a British outlook. Bordeaux and Port are the most detailed sections. Some of it is just absurd; wines of the UK are given more prominence than those of Oregon - something that just doesn't sit right with me. And the text book can be pretty poorly written at times; I've found numerous typos, several omissions and poor cross-referencing. What made the course most worthwhile though, was having the text and course material explained through practical tastings with an experienced instructor at hand to guide us though it all. For me, the value of any wine education is in comparing my limited experience with someone who can put what's in the glass into context and perspective. This in turn makes the regulations, the climates, and the production methods more more sense.

I'll be glad when its over though, and hopefully I'll have time to reflect on how this course has changed my thinking on wine, and whether its changed my experience of it too.

Not a Supertaster? So what...

At our last wine club we had we had an array of fresh (read acidic) white wines in time for spring. A great selection was put together , with some real gems, like a Pouilly-Fumé, and a white Rioja. But the most interesting, or entertaining bit of the evening was when our host pulled out strips of paper soaked in PROP. The "Supertaster" Test. With a bit of build up, and some concern that these may be "broken", we all put the strips in our mouths. Every one in the room immediately noticed the harsh bitter taste in their mouth, except for me. It tasted like paper. So there it is, I'm not a Supertaster. Boo-Hoo, right?

There has been a bit of discussion, if not controversy, about super tasters and their supposed powers. Wine writers and critics would love to be able to tout their above average ability, and with a name like "Supertaster", how could you not want to call yourself one? Consumers, I think, also want to believe that there are supernaturally gifted tasters out there; it would explain their difficulty in describing the wines they taste, and whey they are not able to put their experience into flowery terms - their tongue simply cannot interpret the poetry in the glass.

Well, what is a supertaster? First off, physiologically a supertaster is sensitive to PROP and has a higher density of  papillae on their tongue. Also, supertasters tend to have higher sensitivities to, and often avoid the taste of alcohol, spicy food, carbonation, black coffee, spinach and cabbage. They may be able to discern between artificial sweeteners and regular sucrose. Of course, we all have individual preferences, based on physiological differences, and experiential ones too. Most people I know relish the experience of eating a lobster or shrimp. I do not. I happen to be allergic to shellfish, but I don't feel like I'm missing out because I never grew up eating shrimp or lobster, and have not developed a taste for shellfish.

Michael Steinberger investigated his own idiosyncratic tastes, as well as the philosophical side of supertasters. He quoted Gary Pickering, of Brock University saying "I would speculate that supertasters probably enjoy wine less than the rest of us. They experience astringency, acidity, bitterness, and heat (from alcohol) more intensely, and this combination may make wine - or some wine styles - relatively unappealing."

Most importantly, in regards to "Supertasters" Steinberger asks us "Why is objective tasting, e.g., genotyping, important to validate what people say they experience about the flavor of wine? We don't ask music critics to take hearing tests."

Personally, I'm glad to not be a supertaster. I love coffee, whiskey, beer, wine, spinach, and chilies of all types. I like bold flavors and balk at bland food. But I don't think this puts me at a disadvantage for tasting wine, or describing the experience of drinking one. Here's the real truth about what differentiates wine writers and critics: they are critical thinkers. Its not their tongue that is gifted, its their brain that has been trained. They are able to concentrate on their experience, break it down into isolated sensations, then synthesize it back together and describe it using language. Research suggests that we are not able to discern more than three or four aromas in a given wine. What allows critics the ability to create wordy descriptions is the associations formed through experience. A whiff of black berry brings up images of plum and black currant, which then can be compounded into stewed black fruit and jam. A note of vanilla may suggest oak, which reminds us of toast and cedar boxes, then on to cigars and leather. This is a skill acquired and honed over time, and any wine drinker can learn it, if they care. Most North Americans didn't grow up in wine drinking households, and lack memories, associations, and experience that help form an understanding and appreciation of wine. I also believe that North Americans are not in the habit of talking about food they way other cultures may be, and so we don't develop a lexicon around food (though this seems to be changing).

Now, these associations may be personal or even fantasy on the part of the taster. I've already written about why the typical tasting note may not be useful to understanding a wine. But it reminds me of a what Karen McNeil stated in a recent interview on Fermentation, "Get better at wine." She was encouraging bloggers to become more grounded in wine knowledge. However, if we take the advice at face value, and endeavor to know more about our wine, from its style and characteristics to its provenance, then we are better equipped to taste what is in our glass.

Weddings planning: the anti-wine

I have been so focused on wedding planning recently that, even with all the inspiring wine I've tasted and wine events I've attended, I have next to no free time to write about them. Sadly, weddings also seem to drain one's budget for buying wine...

At the start of May, I attended the Portland Indie Wine Festival. This was a fantastic event, organized by LAD Communications and others. The food booths were all terrific, making it easy not just to find a ballast to all the wine being poured, but to find interesting pairings and imagine many more possibilities. On the whole, the pinot noirs being poured were young, but still very interesting. No winemaker there seemed to shy away from acid, though some expressions were very tight, and reinforced by young tannins may the wines seem unrevealing. The most interesting group, for me, was the Chehalem Mountain wines, which tended to be exceptionally balanced, with lots to offer upfront and on the follow through. Beyond the pinot's, it was interesting to know the growing diversity of varietals being made, if not grown in Oregon. There were Cabernet Sauvignon, Franc, Rieslings, Syrahs and others. Also, as wine festivals go, this was manageable, personal and light-hearted. I will, if possible, return next year, hopefully with the intention to stock up on favorites.

Soon after this, our Wine Club met for a Spain and Portugal night. This was more a survey of Iberian wine, with both red and whites, and even a LBV Port. The wines tasted got me excited for more exploration in this area (after all, this is the purpose of the club). The following night, we had dinner at Vij's with friends, where low and behold, we sampled some more Spanish wine. I'm continually impressed with Vij's wine list, offering a broad selection that befits their eclectic menu. Indian restaurants are not typically known to have great wine lists. The ongoing trend of food fusion, spurred by globalization, was inevitably going to bring together the West's refined drinking tradition with the East's fascinating and complex foods. Plus, crisp pinot gris helps wash the chillies down.

This weekend I am taking the WSET Intermediate Course, and will be sitting the exam the following weekend. Having ready through the course book, I'm not expecting any revelations from the course material, though I hope to find some interesting examples for tasting and discussion. What I fear is that these tastings will focus too much on the international varietals, without hinting at the diverse world of lesser-knowns.

More on Peynaud

I came across this article, which talks about Emile Peynaud. Its interesting to note that a term (Peynaudization) was coined, reflecting his influence.

Read it... I did.

Recent Reading

I just finished Emile Peynaud's The Taste of Wine. Although it was professorial and very technical in parts, it did offer an extremely thorough look at the sensory aspects of wine and mechanics of how we taste. One of the most interesting discussions came towards the end of the book; a short discussion on the concept of cru. This is often translated into growth in English, as in première cru = first growth. What got my attention is how Peynaud's definition of the word compared to his definition of terroir. (Ah! terroir, that over used nebulous French concept-word.) Terroir, in Paynaud's description only accounts for site and soil (which implies degree days, sun aspect, drainage, etc.), whereas cru relates aspects of terroir to man and agricultural production. Terroir, in a sense, is a fixed set of parameters, but cru is how a producer uses those parameters for a qualitative expression, encompassing methods of production and tradition. Cru, therefore, is a much more useful word when talking about wine than terroir. After all, and Peynaud stresses this, wine is a human cultural product. Quality in wine is in large part determined by the choices that a given vingeron makes. Whereas terroir can only offer a potential, man must strive to fulfill that potential.