Grab a buddy, a bottle of wine with a 90+ point review, a pad of paper and a pen. Taste it and take a few moments to jot down a few descriptors. Now compare notes and read the “expert” wine review. Ok, moment of truth, don’t lie, did all three wine reviews describe the pithy taste of lemon rind on a humid day with hints of tangelo against a backdrop of zippy acidity? Like winning the lottery, it’s possible, but unlikely. I theorize that behind more than a few professional reviews lie random word generators. Take heart in knowing that even the most sophisticated wine drinkers wonder what on earth the reviewer was *thinking*. Don’t feel stupid, feel liberated in knowing that one person’s cat pee is another’s gooseberry. Anything goes and everything’s relative.
Now I give you the ULTIMATE wine review using nothing but the most perplexing descriptors I could find from the nation’s leading wine experts. These were gleaned from real 90+ point reviews.
The 2011 Frankenwein field blend opens with “underbrush, and compost characteristics,” before revealing subtle notes of “tar and pebble.” This “bright and jazzy” wine is truly “dark and winey” and the “carnal nose” carries with it a “hint of air-dried beef,” I’d venture to call it “bloodily carnal.” In the mouth, “tannins as fine as Yunnan tea” support “hot brick” as well as “slate and lentil-like notes.” It’s hard to ignore the “sexy caramel oak” and the “tasty creamed apple.” An hour after decanting the wine evolves somewhat to reveal “fruity mushrooms” and “seaweed” all against a backdrop of “dusty blackness.” The finish is long and persistent, a full 60 seconds of “spring sap.”
I’m going to go brush my teeth now.
Moral of the story: Join the Wine.com community and add your own reviews. I have a feeling your reviews might be just as useful as some of the professional ones.