by Julian Schultz
with the Worcester Wine Tasters

         The first eight Tuscany wines, 1997 vintage, traumatized Worcester Wine Tasters; some of the same wines were scored as low as 60 and as high as 89, such an extreme is unusual for our experienced palateer group. The overriding denigration was “too acidic and thin.” That is, until the last flight of four wines were sipped. Then hallelujah! 

            One member, devoted to- and experienced with Italian wines tried to reassure us that with Italian foods, prepared greasy and garlicky, the acid in these wines, predominantly of the sangiovese grape, would penetrate and normalize the food. The wine’s acidity would be reduced in the process, and both food and wine would be enjoyably consumed. 

            I demurred. I said I wouldn’t order greasy garlicky food. Did that mean I would suffer big time heartburn with some – not all -- of the first eight wines that I, too, found acidic? Our Italian wines connoisseur, also one of my physicians, said he would fortify me with the proper pills for prevention. 

            Our brilliant professor of chemistry, physics and mathematics, who filled in for sunny south golfing Dr. Bob Ouellette, sent me this message: “Julian, enjoyed the tasting last night. Most of us are not that well acquainted with Italians (wines), and I think we learned something. But it took that last flight to bring the message home. 

 “I worked on the scores last night; but under the influence of the wine, I conked out in mid calculations. It is astonishing the variation in scoring – not just in individual wines (a 70 vs. an 89) but in overall assessment. One person scored almost all wines in the 70s with two in the 60s. I will try to finish tonight.” 

Next morning I received his e-mail with the consensus scores. The diversity extremes among the palateers doesn’t show; averaging, as we do, smoothens the highs and the lows – the 60s and the 89s, the low 70s – given to the same wines. 

I believe, among many of us, if we have difficulty enunciating flavors in the wines, we tend to downgrade the wine – as though identifying flavors is the sole criterion in evaluating the quality of the wine. Moreover, I suspect many of us in this Tuscany tasting judged the wines by comparing them to wines with which we were familiar: The devotees of Burgundy (pinot noir), Bordeaux (cabernet sauvignon), Spain (tempranillo), Australia (shiraz) had difficulty reconciling Tuscany’s sangiovese grape with their familiarity and enthusiasm for wines of other grapes. 

The professor, with my blessing, will distribute pocket cards that list 16 evaluation criteria, which might make our scores more scientific and less subjective. The evaluation terms in alphabetical order for easier memorizing:

aroma (intensity of smell), acidity (degree of in the taste), alcohol (strength of in texture), assertiveness (degree of in smell and taste), aftertaste (length of after the swallow);

balance (harmony of fruit, acid, tannin, alcohol), body (weight of in texture), bite (degree of “grip” in taste and texture);

color (appearance and intensity), complexity (degree of in aroma and flavor), concentration or focus (degree of in aroma and flavor);

dryness (degree of in taste);

flavor (description – not so important -- and strength of in the mouth), fruit (degree of in aroma and flavor), finish (description of in swallow);

tannin (in reds, degree of astringency in texture and taste). 

After approaching the wine, using these 16 criteria -- scientifically, if you will –  we can become subjective and give the wine a numerical score. Let’s say, if acceptable rate it in the 70s category; like it, in the 80s; love it in the 90s. 

We may also approach wine evaluation and scoring, using the Hedonic Scale. Here the criteria are degree of pleasure or displeasure with the wine. Worcester Wine Tasters will be given copies of this scale, also. We believe these evaluation aids will reduce the wide swing of scores.

 So what do these scores prove? Beats the hell out of me! From the groaning, grousing and negative comments during the discussion, and the 60s and 70s that the professor informed me of, I didn’t expect these consensus scores to be in the 80s and a few in the 90s. I am even surprised at my comparatively high scores for the first eight wines. It must be remembered, however, that when I rate two wines 83 they must be disappointing to my palate. I am a notorious high scorer. 

Evidently there were some other high scorers who balanced the low scorers, therefore resulting in acceptable overall scores. 

Go figure! 

Hey, good Dr. Bob, leave the links and hurry home and resume the chore of insisting your WWT colleagues taste, evaluate and score by following proper evaluation procedures.                                           

drbob@oxfordwineroom.com