In fact, the struggle to develop a lucid and coherent vocabulary for wine tasting has been going on for centuries. In his landmark study, The Taste of Wine, Bordeaux enologist Emile Peynaud traces the slow accretion of terms commonly used to describe fine wines. Ancient Greeks and Romans wrote about wine, and even in the 15th century there are references to wines called "good, clean, honest and commercial." But the true taster's vocabulary really began in the 18th century, when Bordeaux wines such as Haut-Brion and Lafite began to be sold at four to five times the price of ordinary claret, and it became necessary to find words to describe and justify the difference.

Based on extensive research in the literature of wine, Peynaud culled about 40 terms used in the late 18th century, ranging from "acrid," "sour" and "hot," to "lively," "fine" and "strong." More specific flavor descriptors appear in the 19th century, such as "balsamic," "herbal" and "woody." A manual for wine merchants published in 1896 used nearly 200 different descriptors, and today Peynaud recognizes over a thousand terms commonly used to describe wines.

We advocate using commonsense words to describe wines in tasting reports. Our goal is to characterize the wine in general terms, give several distinctive taste descriptors, compare it to other wines of its specific type and indicate when it may be drinking at its best. Though writing tasting notes is more of an art than a science, the descriptions give a fuller idea of a wine's character than the accompanying score, which locates the wine on a comparative quality ranking.

The best way to develop your own wine vocabulary is to write your own tasting notes. You'll find that certain words recur as descriptors of similar wines and soon you'll be fluently describing your organoleptic sensations. Of course, the bottom line of tasting is your own pleasure; your description should reflect your judgment. It has always been thus.

Text from www.winespectator.com.

The Language of Wine Tasting: Beyond the Basics
Here are recent tasting notes for three wines, all Chardonnays, that differ widely in quality and character. By "deconstructing" them, we hope to make tasting notes more accessible to novice tasters, and to assist you in developing your own vocabulary for describing the wines you taste.

Chardonnay Carneros Reserve 1994 ($25)
Bold, ripe, smooth and creamy. A real mouthful of Chardonnay. Its tiers of ripe pear, fig, and honey flavors are framed by smokey, toasty oak. An altogether complex and beautifully crafted wine with a rich butterscotch aftertaste that still has all those delicious flavors chiming in.

This wine is considered "classic, a great wine." This level of quality generates real enthusiasm in the note, with such positive words as "bold," "beautifully crafted" and "delicious." The wine is clearly full-bodied, and all the fruit descriptors indicate it was made from very ripe grapes. (Unripe Chardonnay tends to taste of green apples or citrus fruits.) The "smoky, toasty" flavors are typical results of fermentation and aging in new French oak, an expensive technique generally reserved for top wines, usually reflected in higher price tags. Despite the opulent flavors, skillful winemaking has achieved a harmonious whole, and this Chardonnay shows the ultimate badge of high quality, a long, complex finish. The note doesn't indicate when to drink the wine, but it sounds irresistible now.

Chardonnay South Australia 1995 ($11)
Bright with fruit and supple in texture, this harmonious white has a generous dose of peach and pear flavors and a hint of honey on the finish.

This wine is "very good, a wine with special qualities," and this Chardonnay offers virtues without flaws. Australia is known for a full-bodied, ripe style of winemaking, and that heritage is reflected in this wine's "supple" texture, "generous" fruit flavors and "hint of honey," which all imply fully ripe grapes. Yet the adjectives "bright" and "peach" suggest some refreshing tartness, so it avoids fatness or dullness. Since there are no typically oaky descriptors, it may be that new oak wasn't used during vinification; at least, it doesn't make a strong impression, so wine drinkers who look for those flavors may want to pass. Overall, the note is positive without being insistent. You'll enjoy this wine, especially given the reasonable price, but you probably won't remember it for the rest of your life.

Chablis Grand Cru Vaudésir 1994 ($45)
Fat, rich, quite heavy, overdone. Full-bodied and quite mature, as evidenced by its yellow color.

Chablis is located in the northern Burgundy region of France; it makes white wines from Chardonnay grapes. The vineyards are divided into three quality levels, with grand cru the best. The 1994 vintage was quite successful in Chablis, which makes this wine especially disappointing. This is just an average, a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws. This may be acceptable in an inexpensive quaffing wine, but not one selling for $45. The tasting note makes this Vaudésir sound almost like a parody of a great wine: Instead of being complex, it's "fat;" rather than being well crafted, it's "overdone." Even the color is off—Chablis is generally a keen green-gold, but this one is a dull "yellow." And though not even 2 years old, it's already "quite mature," lacking life and acidity, a danger sign to wine drinkers who expect top white Burgundies to improve for years in the cellar. Even the short, choppy style of the note is a warning to readers who may be impressed by the prestigious label.

Text from www.winespectator.com.