Pretentious whiskey tasting

I am one of these foodies. I don’t believe myself to have an extraordinarily sophisticated palate by any means, but I’ve spent more than thirty years eating a wide variety of things around the world and educating myself via extensive reading and by talking to chefs and artisanal producers. What I know, I have learned by experience, and I think I know a fair bit.

Here’s how that manifests, with a couple of real-world examples from my own life:

I do wine-region visits pretty regularly, spending four or five days in a hot spot and hitting seven to ten wineries each day, touring and tasting. Usually, these tastings offer a handful of what the winery considers their best products — here’s our Pinot noir, and our Merlot, and our Cabernet Franc, or whatever. My favorite tasting option, though, is pretty hard to find, for a variety of reasons — the “vertical flight.” In a vertical, by contrast with the norm, you’re trying a single type of wine across several years: “here is our Cabernet Sauvignon in the 1999 vintage, and the 2001 vintage, and the 2004 vintage,” etc.

Many years ago, during a Napa visit, I went into a winery and saw they were offering a vertical. They were a small producer, with their own vineyards, making wine exclusively with their own grapes. (It’s common for winemakers to supplement the grapes they grow themselves with additional fruit bought from third-party suppliers.) So this was a rare chance at a truly controlled experiment — the same varietal, grown on the same land, under the supervision of the same winemaker, with the only major variable being the year of production. This means you’re directly tasting the weather and the time in the bottle.

I sipped through the flight of five, and noticed right away that the fourth was very different from the others. Its flavors were muted, with its various aromatic qualities blurring together strangely instead of being distinct from one another, as in the others. I noted this to the staffers helping me, and they said they’d had a combination of heavier rains and a problem with the drainage system that year, and that the vineyard was briefly flooded as a result. They fixed it pretty fast, and didn’t think it had done that much damage, which is why they went ahead and produced the vintage.

I don’t know if I would have noticed the blurriness outside the context of a vertical, but with all the wines right next to each other like that, the difference was pretty striking.

Another story:

On a visit to Paris a few years ago, I managed to secure a table at a hot, up-and-coming restaurant. (They have since been awarded a Michelin star.) As the server handed us our menus, he asked if we would like to start with a glass of something. I advised that my wife would have Champagne, and I would be interested in their wine pairings (where they choose something appropriate to accompany each course). Very good, he said.

A few moments later, the sommelier arrived. He said, we have our standard pairing menu, but we have a large cellar, so if you’d like to see the proposed list, we can make adjustments according to your preferences. I said, that won’t be necessary, I’m sure you’ve made your pairings for good reasons, but if it matters, I prefer interesting accompaniments over obvious and conventional. After a brief pause, he smiled, and said, very good.

A couple of minutes later, the server brought two tall flutes with bubbly. Mine was slightly paler in color than my wife’s, so I knew I’d gotten something different. I tasted both; mine had a somewhat subdued profile compared to hers. Then, after another minute, we got the first course.

It was asparagus, prepared several different ways. Asparagus presents a challenge for wine matching; the wrong combination can create an unpleasant metallic flavor. Still, it’s been a known issue for a long time, and there are some rules of thumb one can follow depending on how it’s been cooked. In this case, though, putting several different preparations on one plate makes the challenge even more difficult. I tasted my wine with the food, and found an interesting grassiness that complemented the vegetable beautifully.

The sommelier returned: how do you like the wine? It’s an excellent pairing, I responded; there’s an surprising fresh-herb note that really supports the asparagus. Also, it’s not Champagne, right? The sommelier smiled, and said, what do you think it is? I tasted again, and said, it’s bright and crisp, a bit of mineral, and the aroma of fresh cut grass makes me think Loire Valley. Is it one of their Crémants?

A nod and a smile: very good. I couldn’t be any more specific than that, but I still felt pretty good about it. He shows me the bottle, and I take a note.

From that point forward, it became a game. He’d bring me the next glass, and I’d taste it; then the server would bring the next course, and I’d taste them together; and the sommelier would return and ask for my reaction. I did well enough identifying his picks, at least generally (“definitely a Burgundy, young, I’m gonna say three years in the bottle”), that he started going off-reservation. For a late fish course, he brought a cute little half-sized brandy snifter with a very slightly hued clear liquid that made me think of grappa, but when I tasted it, I instantly recognized it as a junmai-style sake. He raised his eyebrows on that one when I named it: I think he thought he was going to catch me off guard, not least because it’s pretty unusual for a French restaurant even to have sake in the cellar. But the taste and texture are unmistakable.

He finally really got me on the last wine, with the dessert course. I absolutely could not place it, at all. It was definitely a dessert wine, thick and sweet, but it didn’t have any of the characteristics you associate with late-harvest, ice-wine, or botrytis methods. I told him I didn’t have a good guess, but I took a couple of half-hearted pokes in those directions. Finally, he triumphantly told me it was a pear wine (!) made in very small batches as a hobby by a winemaker friend of the chef.

I told him, truthfully, that I would never have guessed that, and I thanked him for a memorable finish to the evening. Because whatever small annoyance I may have felt at this very unfair challenge, pulling something from so far out of left field, was outweighed by the compliment of his having poured me a sample from what must have been one of the restaurant’s own private bottles, rarely offered to customers, if ever.

Anyway, this has gotten a lot longer than I had planned or anticipated. But I really do love this stuff, and I will enthusiastically wave away any suggestion that there’s nothing but pretension in it. Sure, one can take it too far, no question, but that doesn’t mean the whole field of experience can be dismissed outright.

That’s because there are only three types of vodka: bad vodka (vodka with impurities), good vodka (vodka without impurities) and overpriced vodka (vodka without impurities, in an expensive bottle).

Poking fun at the Educated Wine Palate has been a sport for a long time.

Even at that they’re more along the lines of flavor/aroma notes, not distinct flavors. I mean, even something like Jim Beam which has a distinctive peanut note, still tastes like bourbon, albeit with some peanutty aromas. But it’s not like it tastes like someone stirred a teaspoon of peanut butter into the whiskey bottle or anything. Not even close.

Similarly, I’ve had red wines with cherry notes. I just get a whiff of benzaldehyde, and it’s reminiscent of cherries. But it doesn’t taste like a cherry wine or a cherry-flavored wine.

Exactly, though sometimes the smell/taste associations can be stronger for some flavors than others. Like the grapefruit in hops or the banana in certain wheat beer yeasts – those are strong for me, which literally tastes like grapefruits and bananas to me, beyond merely being suggestive. Another famous one is sauvignon blancs with their “cat piss” overtones. That one I can’t really pin down, but for many wine drinkers, it seems to be quite prominent. I get more “grass” than “piss” myself.

The one time I heard that “cat piss” complaint from someone where I was drinking the same wine they were, it was (if I recall correctly) a Chablis with a pronounced mineral note. As limestone is a typical component of cat litter, I assumed they were making that direct sensory association and then jumping indirectly to what goes into the litter.

I just ran across this list of seemingly oddball wine descriptors, and what they mean, and the chemical compounds they are caused by. For me, at least, it was a pretty interesting read. These words are more convenient than saying something has a flavor of 4-mercapto-4-methylpentan-2-one (“cat pee/boxwood”) or 4-ethylpheno (“manure/horsiness”) or hints of 1,6 trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphalene (“kerosene.”)

I assume whiskey descriptors have similar compounds to pair them with.

I’d bet they’re the same exact ones, just probably different in prevalence and concentration.

Personally, I think that one thing that might be good would be some sort of training course, where people could go and try whiskies/beers/wines/etc… with specific flavor notes, so that they know what is being talked about. I think a lot of people are often looking for more intense and prominent flavors than what’s there in many cases. Like they’re expecting the “fresh mint” in a bourbon to be as prominent as banana or clove in a hefeweizen, and then being surprised when it’s not, and then deciding the whole thing is BS.

A “training course” is a great idea. But I think it’d best start with plain water laced with one particular flavorant at a fairly high level any noob could recognize as akin to “cherry”, “mushroom”, or whatever. Then over time work them down to a more realistic concentration as you’d find in an actual beverage.

Lather rinse repeat for the many flavor notes found in booze. That would be the 100-level course in sophisticated tasting. Which might take 20+ class sessions to avoid palate fatigue.

And along the way you’d have dropouts whose palate wasn’t powerful enough to even detect the flavorant in the more realistic reduced concentrations. Somebody burned out on salt, capsicum, or cigarettes may well be physically unable to detect the notes the cognoscenti and even ordinary schlubs like me wax ecstatic over.

The 200-level course would graduate to real drinks, starting with varieties that have few and particularly prominent notes then slowly working over the semester to the more subtle drinks with complex layering, etc.

A similar program could be done for the many flavor notes of herbs & spices. You can tell the difference between e.g. mace and nutmeg in a finished dish, but it takes some practice / experience. More than many of us have.

Such a course exists for beer aficionados. Cicerone Certification Programs are a thing.

Cool.

I’d assume anyone who is a professional taster in food production would have gone through a similar course of some nature.

Similarly, my nephew is certified as a coffee taster. (that might not be the right language, but it conveys the gist of it.)

Coffee taster was exactly the occupation I was thinking of. Amazing coincidence! Cheers!

There is also the BJCP.

I met a guy who worked in coffee and had advanced training. He had me sequentially chew several beans, spitting out the material once it was ground up pretty well in my mouth, then rinsing with water. He told me what stood out for him after each bean, and I could appreciate what he was saying.

Setting aside your personal likes/dislikes/preferences to be able to objectively evaluate a beer against others of its type is a noble calling.

My nephew brews a delicious mug of coffee, by the way!

We try.

Although it has its downsides. I remember one competition where I was forced to note on a score sheet that the competitor’s yak had apparently developed a kidney condition.

I sort of had one, once. I went to “Tales of the Cocktail” in New Orleans some years ago, and one of the seminars I attended was jointly hosted by Heaven Hill & Glenmorangie.

They had about 15-20 little half-oz shot glasses arranged on a sort of diagram- they had examples of the same whiskies aged for different time periods, same whiskey/same time, different barrels, and so forth. That’s what gave me the idea- it was really interesting to try the same whiskey all the way from white dog to 15 year old bourbon. Or to have the same scotch, just aged in whiskey barrels vs. sherry casks. Or in the real oddity of the event, Scotch whisky aged in new charred bourbon barrels.

I like your idea, although I might just do the flavor in something neutral, and then maybe a side-by-side of an actual beverage with and without it. So you might isolate what makes for “hogo” in rum, and put some of that in water. Then have the person taste something by Appleton Estate (or other Jamaican distillery) next to something without the hogo, like Cruzan or Mount Gay. That way, they get examples of with and without. For wines, it might be high/low expressions of the same varietal.

I took wine tasting in college. The instructor did things like soak the wine in grass (and then strain it + we didn’t drink this wine) and then we’d go down a line and write down descriptors for these different concoctions. Then when tasting unadulterated wine you might pick up something that reminded you of the the grass wine. Aha, now I have some vocabulary for it!

Pairing were more interesting though. How wine changes sweet or spicy or umami flavors.