Progressive Wine Appreciation and Shifting Paradigms

When I first got involved in wine...somewhere back in the Paleolithic Era, I believe...two things applied.

First, it was pretty dull. There weren't that many choices available; there was lots of bad wine, lots of mediocre wine, and very litle really good wine available in the US (especially anywhere more than about five miles from the East Coast or South of New York. The shelves were mostly jug and fortified, mostly plonk, with only the occasional small-production quality wine.

Second, the 'progression' of a taster was pretty much considered a standard arc. The newbie started with sweet wine, then progressed slowly to drier and drier white (and concomitant body as well), and then began a hesitant transition to red, then progressed from innocuous sweet-ish reds to those with higher tannins. At that time, it was thought that no one could actually start with a Bordeaux red, for instance, because there was no way a beginner could come close to appreciating such a full-bodied, robust, tannic monster of a wine.

Well, things have changed. That old paradigm, that arc of progression, seems old fashioned now. Part of that is the sheer avaiability of wines out there, the immediate access to wines never even heard of or known about as little as 20 years ago (hell, for some, as little as 3 years ago!).

Plus, I strongly suspect that the old linear progression stopped applying a long, long time ago, and that people don't follow a standard accepted progression in the development of their tastes any longer. The old Sweeter and LIghter to Drier and Bolder Whites, then the same with reds, jus doesn't seem to fit any more (if indeed it ever did).

So what do you wine cerebralists think about this? Are the 'old rules' still pretty much applicable? Or has the paradigm shifted so greatly as to not even resemble what it used to be?

And what's your own personal progression look like? So far, I mean. And was there a particular and obvious shift point, when you started suddenly appreciating something you had never particularly paid attention to before?

[James Roscoe]

There are times when I wonder if you don't think too much Hoke. This is not meant to be a criticism, just an observation. Happy Trails!

There are times when I wonder if you don't think too much Hoke. This is not meant to be a criticism, just an observation. Happy Trails!

James, there are times when I wonder exactly the same thing.

It's a curse.

I think in the old days wine drinkers used to start with cheap French reds and then declare they didn't like red wine!

(Only slightly) more seriously, many peoples' first exposure to wine will now be from New World. Some stay there, others migrate towards old world styles. The lucky ones retain an interest in both camps and hence have a wider range of styles to choose from.

Linked to this, cheap (branded) wine is probably better made and certainly more accessible than it used to be, though to someone who's tasted widely, the sameness and blandness of these entry level wines can grate awfully. Sometimes it feels better to have a rough wine with character, than a more professionally made wine with less (character).

regards

Ian

Speaking only about my own progression, Hoke (as I don't have the perspective that you do on the larger question): I started with young, red, tannic wines as they were what I'd grown up with at the dinner table (the "Dago red" that my father drank). I also knew softer dry white wines, as those were what my mother drank. Some of my first wine purchases were a '74 Concannon Sauvignon Blanc and some '73 Zinfandels. From there, I gradually learned to appreciate Pinot Noir and Gamay as well as discovering the wines of France (starting with Chateauneuf, of all things). It was only after I'd cellared some wines for 5-10 years that I learned to appreciate the beauty of mature reds, and even later that I began ritually pairing food with wine and learned the importance of dry and off-dry white wines. When I hear people talking about palates changing with age, it's usually in the direction of decreased subtlety, but for me it's been entirely the opposite. I now love what I get in the nose, and secondary and tertiary elements are more important often times than fruit.

I also wonder how much of this shift in palate preference isn't attributable to price increases, as I've been systematically priced out of the market for California Cabernet, Classed Bordeaux, Côte-Rôtie and Hermitage, Burgundy and now Chateauneuf. It's a nice raionalization to convince oneself that that bottle of Muscadet is the equal of Premier Cru Chablis and that Morgon is as good as a Côte d'Or red, but when you only taste one half of the equation, how do you know if it's true?

Mark Lipton

An interesting analytical concept, Hoke.

I have seen so many unique appreciation starting points and exploration paths for individuals, that I'm not sure I could extrapolate any worthwhile wine-related theory or pattern among them as a whole. There's more differentation among their stories than much commonality among them. Perhaps one could say that, if one experiences an exposure to wine which triggers more initial interest in wine, then one tends to explore what is possible, at least for a while. It's a human reaction: exposure triggers interest, leads to pursuit and perhaps again, discovery.

When I hear people talking about palates changing with age, it's usually in the direction of decreased subtlety..

I guess it depends which age.

I can imagine (although I'm not there yet) that as you round into the 70s and 80s one's taste buds might get worn down and one might be less interesting subtlety. But, as one gets older from the 20s to 40s, perhaps it is reasonable to expect more subtlety.

Great feedback right away. I like that.

Ian, I would agree that one paradigm shift is that most people's initial exposure today would be New World. And I suspect (but of course can't prove, as that might be wishful thinking to satisfy my own prejudices) they would eventually tire of the sameness and move on to other sources/styles/types.

That's better than an intial exposure to indeterminate and indiscriminant cheap jug blends anyway. At least there is a definite starting point, instead of just vagueness.

The other side of that is the newbies are starting...probably...from identified varieties. And identified blends. When I began, that wasn't the case. Very few people knew what a variety was (we had to explain it carefully to those new consumers). Now they start with 'Chardonnay" or "Cabernet Sauvignon" or "Pinot Noir"----beginning with categorical differences. That's an entirely different approach from the past.

I would also agree that the branded entry-level wines of today are far, far better across the board. Even the cheapest wines are better than ever before. You have to work to find truly unpalatable wine these days---if you are fairly unsophisticated, I mean. Let's not talk about the horrors that wine geeks have to deal with in the mass market.

And with overall better quality we have overall greater choice. That can be paralyzing to some, an invitation to others. It does make it fairly easy, though, to start differentiating within a class, since there are far more opportunities than ever before.

Which brings me to another good point: the opportunity to sample a diverse array of wines, from the most mundane to the most exotic, in restaurants or cafes, is far, far greater today than ever before. The by-the-glass phenom, a relatively recent development, allows the most casual drinker to sample a wide array of wines for a pittance; in the wayback, that wasn't possible. It was buy a bottle or fuggedaboudit.

So the overall market is much more conducive to potential wine drinkers to more rapidly and easily develop or expand their tastes.

I definitely wasn't around in the Paleolithic Era but I can only imagine that with all the diverse wines available today people are more likely to start in their own idiosyncratic places and therefore the arcs are also more diverse.

That said, I do think it is easier for newcomers to appreciate rich bold wines at first and that it takes more experience to appreciate more delicate wines. And by experience I mean literally the process of rolling the wine in your mouth and understanding how to analyze it. Many of the casual wine drinkers do not have this down. So the big bold wines with lots of fruit are easy to 'place' in the mouth, but they will not catch the texture of a finer Burgundy, for example.

When I hear people talking about palates changing with age, it's usually in the direction of decreased subtlety..

I guess it depends which age.

I can imagine (although I'm not there yet) that as you round into the 70s and 80s one's taste buds might get worn down and one might be less interesting subtlety. But, as one gets older from the 20s to 40s, perhaps it is reasonable to expect more subtlety.

I suppose it could.

Thank the FSM I haven't stumbled into that tastebud senility as yet. I'm delighting even more these days in both the infinitely subtle and nuanced wines, as well as revelling in wines of vigor and dash. I can appreciate the quiet little jewels or the laser cutters. (How's that for mixing metaphors!)

If I remember correctly, I would be on the far end of a three point spectrum, with Rahsaan on the other end, and Mark in the middle. I don't think either of us would necessarily fall in to the "subtlety is everything" camp. But if one of us leaned that way...I'd say it would be Rahsaan, actually, our youngest palate.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong.

"subtlety is everything" camp. But if one of us leaned that way...I'd say it would be Rahsaan, actually, our youngest palate.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong.

Subtlety is everything?

That doesn't sound like me.

I like fruit in my wine. For example, the beloved Muscadet should have some depth and not just acid.

For another example, had a lovely 04 Truchot Charmes Chambertin tonight, elegant, subtle, sure, but I don't know who could call it underripe. There was fruit, it was pleasing.

I definitely wasn't around in the Paleolithic Era but I can only imagine that with all the diverse wines available today people are more likely to start in their own idiosyncratic places and therefore the arcs are also more diverse.

That said, I do think it is easier for newcomers to appreciate rich bold wines at first and that it takes more experience to appreciate more delicate wines. And by experience I mean literally the process of rolling the wine in your mouth and understanding how to analyze it. Many of the casual wine drinkers do not have this down. So the big bold wines with lots of fruit are easy to 'place' in the mouth, but they will not catch the texture of a finer Burgundy, for example.

Oh, I agree. It has always been the case that the big bold fruit wines are easier to instantly like, Rahsaan. Also the case with those you might think more perceptive and sophisticated; but wine judges fall for that same thing. Many sweepstakes/double gold medals come from the biggest, fattest, juiciest and boldest expression within a given category, while deliciously subtle wines are often entirely overlooked.

I also wonder how much of this shift in palate preference isn't attributable to price increases,

I don't believe that aspect would affect the beginning drinker, or rather I should say the person at the beginning of the arc of discovery, Mark.

But it sure as hell affects people like you and me (especially when we have practical wives who are wont to say things like "You spent HOW MUCH on that bottle of Cote Rotie???). Yup, I've been sequentially priced out of so many categories already---and I suspect there will be many, many more to come----that my drinking patterns have changed irrevocably.

Sometimes that's good; sometimes that's bad. It's bad when I can't afford Barolo any more, and I have to think long and hard over MOR Barbaresco. It's good when the dynamic keeps me moving along to discover other earthly delights.

The one thing I don't regret being priced out of is those CA Cabs. That's because I've found plenty enough to replace them in my affections, and for much more reasonable prices. Until those things get cultish anyway.

Interesting thread. As I'm sitting here contemplating my wine autobiography, I'm watching "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", which was made about the same time I started to like wines (it's 4AM - Halloween night). At that time my brother-in-law was a graduate student at Cornell and my wife would visit him on occasion and visit wineries in the Finger Lakes. This was before the Farm Winery Bill had been passed and there were only a few wineries there. The area was dominated by Taylor, Great Western, Gold Seal and Widmers, making wine from labrusca and hybrids. Dr. Frank was the only one growing vinefera and their wines were not readily available and Bully Hill was the upstart winery run by that trouble making wine hero Walter S. Taylor. We were consuming these wines along with the likes of Mateus Rose, Gallo Hearty Burgundy, Almaden Chablis and Blue Nun. Then during the late 70's several things happened to change my direction. The first was consuming 3 epiphany wines: 1967 Haut Brion, 1967 Lafite and 1974 Raymond Napa Cabernet Sauvignon. I also started making my own wines from local grapes. I was working in a sandpaper factory and we had an extended strike, so to help make ends meet I started working as a tour guide at the only local winery. I learned a lot about making wine and became very familiar with many of the labrusca and hybrid grapes. Then, life got in the way. We had 5 sons in 8 years and finances were such that wine was a luxury, so in the Fall I would barter my time harvesting grapes for enough to make my own wines. So, I came to appreciate hybrids as capable of making decent everyday table wines. I still like many of them and still make them. However, over the past 10 years, I've had more wines from all around and some of these I have come to really like, such as German Rieslings, Alsation Gewurtz, Vouvray and Italian reds. Some, though, I just don't get, like Sauvignon Blanc and Syrah. I can appreciate them as well made wines, but there is something about them that just does not hit it right with me. I've found many wines from nearby wineries that I like and I buy them, both to support the local economy and to use as a benchmark for my home made wines. I'm still learning, but I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for late harvest Delaware and and a nice crisp Vignoles.

I cannot help but think that much in this issue relies on the country and regional status (urban or rural) in which one is raised.

In many parts of rural France and Italy, for example, children are started off with the same wines that their parents drink, those often diluted with water to keep alcohol intake at a moderate level, the amount of water decreased as the child develops. Truth be told, many of those parents have been drinking wines produced primarily within the locality and the concern with quality/standards are minimal, the test being whether it is a wine that "pleases". Fair enough. Another truth is that most of the people in these areas will drink these wines all of their life and there simply is no progression. That too is fair enough.

As many of those children migrate to more urban areas they do fall into much the same standard progression that we have known for years - from whites to reds, from light- to medium-bodied and then to fuller-bodied, from less tannic to more tannic reds. More importantly, no matter what "category" of wines they drink, urban European folk (like urban North American folk) are moving in the direction of increased quality, that factored together with increased value for money.

In North America, wine progression seems to move somewhat in jerks and starts... the vast majority of people never even knowing about or if they do know, not dreaming of drinking Opus 1, Lafite Rothschild or Clos de Vougeot. The "jerks" can be attributed to various factors (e.g. a film, a major advertising campaign). Two major factors in American drinking habits are availability and pricing. Another is what I think of as the "snobbism factor". I recall a phase during which many Americans were saying "I don't drink white wines because they are never as complex as reds". As a small side-note, all that I have said about North Americans is also true for Israelis.

Also to be factored in of course, regardless of where on the planet, are the elements of disposable income (the higher that is the greater the exposure to "better" wines) and that of socio-economic status outside of income - that is to say, e.g. level of education, type of employment.

The good news in all of this is that the progression may not really matter very much. Wines, at all levels of price have improved dramatically over the years (sheesh....even Liebfraumilch and Mateus Rose are drinkable these days). As for me, I'd sum it up quite simply by saying that I would far rather see people drinking White Zin with their dinners than Diet Sprite. From that White Zin they may, after all, move on to a true Zinfandel. And once they do that, there are no limits. The only problem of course is that once exposed to better wines it is very difficult indeed to return to "lesser" wines.

I think it also important to keep in mind that the vast majority of people in the world have never heard of and certainly do not read Robert Parker, the Wine Spectator, or any wine critic at all. We critics and we who take part in various wine boards are indeed a very small number and in that our own progressions represent nothing more than a very limited and skewed sample. That may not make us any better or worse, but it certainly does put us outside the norm.


Best
Rogov

When I hear people talking about palates changing with age, it's usually in the direction of decreased subtlety..

I guess it depends which age.

I can imagine (although I'm not there yet) that as you round into the 70s and 80s one's taste buds might get worn down and one might be less interesting subtlety. But, as one gets older from the 20s to 40s, perhaps it is reasonable to expect more subtlety.

As a septagenarian, I am not acutely aware of loss of palate sensitivity because it is so gradual as to be almost imperceptible but it is a fact that at wine gatherings many of the younger tasters claim to perceive things which I just don't get. Of course it is probably true that my palate and nose never were as sensitive as those of the best but age undoubtedly plays a part in dimming perceptions. Nevertheless, this is preamble to pointing out that my preference for subtle and elegant wines over blockbusting fruit bombs is as strong as ever but I am becoming more appreciative of vibrant young wines than before without losing my love of mature examples.

My apprenticeship, of course, belonged to the paleolithic age when only claret, burgundy, hock, moselle (the then spelling), sherry and port counted. I started on left bank claret and still regard it as a standard. The first eye-opener outside that sextet was Rioja, which I first met in the late 60s/early 70s on business trips to Spain; they were beautifully elegant and then cheap (Marques de Riscal Reserva about 300 Pesetas = 2€!!!). Progressively I then discovered other French regions, starting with the Rhône, then Italy (previously confined to straw covered bottles when on holiday there) as their standards improved out of all recognition and lately Portugal and Austria.

I confess to never having come to terms with the "modern" fruit forward, oaky and alcoholic style so prevalent in the New World and, sadly, increasingly in Europe, especially Spain and Italy, but am comforted by the fact that there are boutique producers everywhere doing much better than that.

There was no progression along my personal wine route in terms of wine style; if anything, the progression could be drawn as a very abrupt set of blocks: having industrial jug wines during "special occasions" and coming away thinking I didn't like wine, period; to a few years of not drinking wine at all; and then finally, the discovery of quality estate wines from many different grape varieties.

As far as my fine wine appreciating period is concerned, I never started off with easy-going wines; I got right into the "difficult" (to me, extremely interesting) ones from the get go. I still think that in my overall wine value hierarchy, I prefer wines that are in some way challenging, even controversial - and years on, I am happy with this value set.

And yes, despite all the poking and prodding over the years, I am every bit as much a fan of labrusca, old-line hybrids and, of course, classical Pinotage.

As a septagenarian, I am not acutely aware of loss of palate sensitivity because it is so gradual as to be almost imperceptible but it is a fact that at wine gatherings many of the younger tasters claim to perceive things which I just don't get. Of course it is probably true that my palate and nose never were as sensitive as those of the best but age undoubtedly plays a part in dimming perceptions..

Actually, now that you mention it, I've had people in their 40s and 50s tell me that they no longer noticed all the specific taste details that they used to notice in their 20s and 30s when they were first starting out. Of course they also acknowledged that it was hard to tell whether this was the result of having been inexperienced and impressed when they were younger so everything seemed exotic and flavorful, whereas now their senses were more attuned to structure.

I'm sure there is plenty of research on taste bud and taste perception changes over time.

It's interesting. I alter my original thoughts on this a bit now, having read the input of the thread.

Many older tasters who've I known appear to have equal or superior tasting abilities to recognize or judge various wine styles, compared to those younger. I suspect the older palate may show less patience or interest in the charms of heavy, obvious, or clumsy wines, these fruit oafs I label "goofy grape". I call this perspective "an old man's palate" and I admit to being part of that particular bent. Generalizations are dangerously convenient, but I am comfortable that this one is consistent with what I see happening to myself and others.

With regard to the combined senses of taste and aroma as one ages there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that the "practiced palate" (i.e. the person who is in the habit of seeking out and thinking about such things) is much like the "well-tuned brain". In the case of the person who is well aware of such things and tastes on a regular basis, the senses of smell and taste are among the very last to deteriorate. Much as with the brain whose call into use on a regular and at least somewhat challenging basis is a way to stave off various forms of dementia.

The bad news is that those who focus not at all on taste or aroma suffer a much more rapid deterioration in their ability to discern or appreciate different aromas and flavors, that starting not at 30-45 but above the age of 60.

Simply said, practice may not make perfect but it sure as heck does keep us in tune. And that, by the way, (for those of whom it is of interest) is true of various sexual functions as well. As a point of personal reference (not from age but of profession), may I point out that some of the most noted restaurant and wine critics as well as many of the most respected chefs and winemakers functioned well into their 80's.

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

One of the things that has turned the progression on its head is the status that is conveyed (or is perceived to be conveyed) by drinking nothing bu the "best" and most expensive wines. Combine that with folks who have way too much money & you get Latour as a starter wine.

[James Roscoe]

One of the things that has turned the progression on its head is the status that is conveyed (or is perceived to be conveyed) by drinking nothing bu the "best" and most expensive wines. Combine that with folks who have way too much money & you get Latour as a starter wine.

Then they drink it, don't like it, and think all red wine is crap. Good point David.

One of the things that has turned the progression on its head is the status that is conveyed (or is perceived to be conveyed) by drinking nothing bu the "best" and most expensive wines. Combine that with folks who have way too much money & you get Latour as a starter wine.

Then they drink it, don't like it, and think all red wine is crap. Good point David.

Or, in Japan, they mix it with Coca-Cola.

My wine education started pre paleolithic and I can remember with great fondness many blind tastings out of amphoras in Athens with the local geeks. Some great wines and no problem with over oaking.