These notes work for me:
1. F*^&ing awesome!
2. Damn good
3. OK
4. Tastes like S#!t
any more is BS
Printable View
These notes work for me:
1. F*^&ing awesome!
2. Damn good
3. OK
4. Tastes like S#!t
any more is BS
Yeah. It's kinda nuts. I was just reading the book Predictably Irrational. In about the middle of the text, the topic is the effect of expectations on experience. Someone at the SMWS is clearly knowledgeable on the psychology of marketing. I can imagine someone in the room with the tasting panel filling out a Mad Libs template.
My favorite is when Hansel used "shoe fly pie" in a description. Still makes me giggle.
What, you've never had shoe fly pie? ;)
And wet pavement.... Is that fresh poured concrete pavement, rain soaked asphalt, or thunderstorm moistened tar? Supertasters want to know!
I do have to admit the younger folks who say things taste like excrement or the place it comes from, or other interesting locations/flavors, always makes me laugh. And yes, I have inadvertently tasted some of those items. Mostly due to farming "accidents".
Shoo fly pie is some tasty stuff.
It's okay to use some imagination in tasting notes. If I think something tastes like dirt, I will say it tastes like dirt, even if I've never tasted dirt.
On the other hand, I think using more than five or so descriptors for the smell or taste of a whisky is pointless. Choose the ones which best represent the experience; leave the rest out. Otherwise you lose the essence of it. I think it was our friend Davin who once used about fifteen different descriptors for a whisky, after which he commented that it was not very complex.
The worst was a fellow named Dr. Whisky, who said in his review of McLelland Islay that it contained "a touch of dog poo." And it was meant to be a POSITIVE reivew! Once you've detected dog poo in your whisky, you might as well forget about ever enjoying it again.