The largest wine encyclopedia in the world

23.006 Keywords • 48.228 Synonyms • 5.304 Translations • 28.313 Pronunciations

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


French term for sample in the sense of sample (try). This can be, for example, a soil tasting (échantillon de sol) or a wine tasting (échantillon de vin). See below wine review,

There are numerous names for testing and evaluating wines by "smelling and tasting", some of which are, for example, tasting, tasting, wine tasting and wine tasting. It is one sensory (Organoleptic) testing of a wine with a descriptive explanation of the knowledge gained according to defined rules and criteria using generally applicable and understandable terms (see under Wine address ). At the relevant events, this is not done in a scientific-analytical manner with technical or other aids, but “only” through the sensory organs such as the eye, nose, palate and tongue. This may result in the evaluation by awarding points according to different systems. In addition, there are also possibilities to carry out an objective measurement using exact, chemical analyzes. For example, this is the determination of Alcohol content, Total extract, Residual sugar, Acids, sulfur and other substances in wine.

Wine rating - Wein-Plus: good, very good, excellent, large, unique

sensory and analytical testing

Nevertheless you can come without a "subjective" test sensory Tasting not by humans, but the two methods complement each other and only result in a "fair" assessment when combined. A person can determine the taste "sweet", but never exactly how many grams of sugar are contained in a liter of wine. By analytical testing again, however, it cannot be determined whether a wine "tastes". There is the phenomenon of national preferences and rejections. Generally Austrians and Germans prefer acidic, Italians bitter, American sweet and French astringent Taste, although such generalizations should be viewed with caution. The lighting in a room also influences the taste of a wine: For example, it tastes better in red and blue light than in green or white light, according to scientists from the Psychological Institute at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz found out. The study found that the test wine tasted about 1.5 times sweeter under red light than under white or green light. The fruitiness was also rated the highest with red light.

professional tasting

Professional tasters can, however, ignore such influencing factors and judge a wine “fairly” and “objectively” by, of course, ignoring their personal preferences and dislikes as much as possible. However, this can only be achieved through years of practice and experience. In order to eliminate influences from external circumstances such as the lighting mentioned above, professional tastings take place in a sparsely furnished, neutral environment. The famous English taster Michael Broadbent (1927-2020) tasted over 70,000 wines. But he does not use any of the point systems described below in his ratings, but awards one to five stars. The well-known wine author Hugh also uses it Johnson its own scheme with 12 levels. In addition to theoretical knowledge, the following skills are required: olfactory acuity, ability to differentiate and remember, ability to concentrate and the greatest possible objectivity. It plays an important role Perception threshold. This is the limit in mg / l range and smaller, from which you can identify and name a substance.

Well-known wine critics: E. Peynaud, R. Parker, J. Robinson, M. Broadbent, H. Johnson

Professor Emile Peynaud (1912-2004), who is one of the most famous tasters, writes the following in his standard work "High School for Wine Experts": The statement that something is sweet is an objective statement; it characterizes the product in question. To say that for example a cup coffee be enough or not enough sweet; is a subjective expression; she is personal; it depends on a person's drinking habits and taste. But if you say that sugar tastes unpleasant; that you loathe everything that is sweet, you express an affective opinion.

The professional taster must be able to switch off his affectivity. He shouldn't say whether he likes or likes a wine. You don't want to know that from him. He has to study the wine, describe it, assess its good or bad organoleptic properties and draw conclusions. While these will be subjective, they should not be based on personal preference, at least as little as possible. This is the big and decisive difference to the untrained wine drinker, whose judgment is purely affective. "

different evaluation results

Nevertheless, even with absolute specialists, the rating for the same wine can be different, although that usually (if at all) accounts for only a few points. With several scales from different manufacturers, one can very well assume that when weighing an object up to at least a tenth of a gram, the same result will be obtained. Because the scales are all calibrated. But this cannot be the case with people, because the palate and tongue, as well as the experience and preferences of different people are certainly not identical. A different result is therefore not necessarily, but also not surprising.

As an exemplary example for an extremely different evaluation, the rating of the red wine from Chateau Pavie of the 2003 vintage mentioned by Robert Parker 96/100 points and by Jancis Robinson 12/20 points were awarded. Below is the formula for converting points between the 20 and 100 system. Accordingly, Robinson's 12/20 points correspond to 76/100 points - that means a "simple wine without mistakes". Parker's 96/100 points mean "great world-class wine". However, the two did not taste from the same bottle. Two Bottles can have quality differences for different reasons, what one as Bottle variance designated.

As a rule, wine ratings are not scientifically valid. If you were to repeat the competition the same day with the same judges and the same wines, the results would not be completely different, but most likely the results would be different. In terms of a scientifically recognized result, however, they would have to be repeatable, that is, at best, completely identical. One can assume that the differences between two rounds of evaluation are smaller, the higher the knowledge, experience and professionalism of the tasters. See also the result of a legendary international battle between France and California under Paris Wine Tasting.

Occasion of a tasting

A wine is tasted to determine its quality for various reasons. As part of an official inspection, professional control bodies determine, among other things, whether the wine meets the wine law requirements. This is for example when awarding the Official test number (Germany) and State test number (Austria) for Quality wines the case where in addition to the analytical testing using chemical and technical aids sensory (organoleptic) through the sensory organs. Another reason can be a competition in which different wines are tasted, rated and ranked awarded become. The third reason can be purely private. Either to further educate yourself, to enjoy wine with friends and to talk about it, or to find the best value for money when buying wine. However, the criteria are very similar, in any case they must be precisely defined and known beforehand so that all tasters start from the same basis.

The best time for a tasting is in the late morning because the human body or sensory organs are the most receptive and “fresh”. A runny nose, medication taken, spicy or spicy foods, coffee, sour fruits, tobacco -Goods, chewing gum and perfume are bothersome during a tasting or can have a negative impact....

World's largest wine knowledge database, made with by our author Norbert Tischelmayer.

About the Glossary


Privacy Notice: ×

Cookies facilitate the provision of our services. By using our services, you agree that we use cookies.