When you say, "This wine is undrinkable..."

…is it really, truly something you CAN’T drink? This is a serious question. We all have seen tasting notes both here and on countless other wine sites and forums in which the tasting notes author writes, “Undrinkable” at some point in his or her tasting note. Is that hyperbole, or do you all pour glasses of wine down the sink with regularity? My thought is that it’s meant to make a point. The translation would be, “This wine is so far from my preferred style that I really, really, really don’t like it and want to make that known so I’m going to label it as undrinkable.” Then, one might not pour any more of that wine, but might finish the taste or glass he or she has. I’m not talking about faulty or spoiled wine, but wine that is technically sound but deemed undrinkable.

I ask this because, frankly, I think it’s kind of silly. Sure, I’ve had many a wine that I really don’t like, but I don’t think there’s ever been a wine that I couldn’t actually drink. The poster child (at least here) is, of course, Caymus. Now, please let me state, I don’t particularly care for Caymus and don’t own any, but is it really undrinkable? Would you retch or vomit at having a taste? Anyway…just another meaningless wine topic that I thought I’d put out there.
[cheers.gif]

For me, undrinkable means I would not drink it. I would pour the glass or bottle down the sink and open something else or drink water, which I have done.

There’s plenty of wine I have tasted at tastings that I did not buy, but I wouldn’t call the wine undrinkable. Undrinkable to me is something I am rail dumping at the sink or spit jar at the winery because its just nasty. Only had a few of these in my short time drinking wine. Corked & cooked wines come to mind real quick.

This is somewhat of a pet peeve for me. When I read a tasting note that states this, it always leads to the question of why. There are already enough challenges with tasting notes in terms of trying to think of things objectively. When I read this, I wonder if the wine is faulty in some specific way or if the tasters simply did not like it. Either those would be a much better use of words to me.

To me, or my spouse, it’s a seriously flawed wine that neither one of us would drink or cook with and thus it goes down the drain.

Well…when I say a wine is “undrinkable”, I usually make it clear why it is undrinkable. Oft times, it may be so loaded w/ brett/barnyard that I simply
don’t want to drink it. I’ve never had a wine that was so bad that it caused me to wretch. But I have had wines that I spit out and than had to drink some
water to get that wretched taste out of my mouth. The Bichi Pais was one such…a natural wine so loaded w/ hantavirus/mousey/mouse poop/mouse urine
that I couldn’t eradicate that taste from my mouth. Have one more btl to revisit.
My easy indicator of an “undrinkable” wine is when Susan dumps it down the sink. The Bichi did just that.
Tom

I had my first Patricia Green and smell was nice but the taste was horrible. I thought it was maybe just me but others at the table said the same thing. After one sip we pouref the bottle down the drain. I can’t recall what was wrong with the taste. It was long ago

I don’t understand the question. If a wine is so unpleasant that I’d rather pour it down the drain than drink it, it is, to me, undrinkable. Would you think the same? How should I know? Some people here love shitty wine. And by that I mean wine that tastes, literally, like animal feces, and some winemakers set that as a goal. To me, brett is a flaw, always, and at detectable levels makes a wine undrinkable; for Alfert, that’s what makes it welcome at his table. Or asparagus flavors or cat pee flavors or any one of a variety of “flaws” some people like.

So, to each his own. If a wine I find undrinkable is a wine you think is unimpeachable, bully for you! I sincerely hope
you find rapture in every bottle

Trader Joe’s Two Buck Chuck was undrinkable for me as was 19 Crimes Chardonnay. Spit that one right out and poured the bottle down the drain.

It is for me, too, Larry.

For those talking about dumping faulty wine, see my OP, I’m talking about wine that is otherwise sound. I get that some “faults” are subjective like levels of Brett, etc. Corked or cooked wines aren’t what I’m talking about.

I cannot speak for others, but I would call a wine “undrinkable” when it´s tasting/smelling that bad that I do not want to have another sip of it in my mouth.
That´s usually the case when it´s seriously flawed (TCA, heavy brett, strong volatile acidity, heavy oxidation etc.) or - very rarely - absolutely against my taste … totally out of balance with shrill acidity or bitter tannins or whatever (then I would note “undrinkable to me”).
As said above the 2nd case is very rare … and moreover a wine simply not tasting good can still used for cooking … even a premoxed wine …

I understand the difference between a flawed wine and style differences, but I have poured many Caymus-like wines down the sink because I find them undrinkable (for me).

I still don’t understand the question or your pique. While I don’t recall ever having written here that I found a wine undrinkable, I see no reason to avoid the term. If I would rather pour the wine down the drain than drink it, it is, by definition, undrinkable to me. It surely would be helpful for a poster to add that it was probably the wine the winemaker intended to make and might be drinkable or orgasmic to someone else, but I don’t see that as a necessary addendum to a post.

Too few people post TNs as it is. Complaining about how posters express themselves seems churlish to me, especially when the writer’s intent is clear.

I use that terminology when a wine really irks me, say like the 2005 Lascombes. It’s a hyperbolic expression that aptly characterizes how you feel about a wine that failed because of winemaking, not a flaw like TCA. Of course it is not literally undrinkable, but I will not drink it. I have no qualms about dumping a wine that is below average. Life is too short.

Neal,

I here you, but terms like this are used often here and elsewhere a lot - subjective terms that make it impossible for someone else to understand more about the wine.

I agree with what Tom does - he uses the term only after he explains why. Others simply thrive it out there without explanation - kind of like going on to CT and reviewing a wine by only giving it a score.

Cheers.

This is one of those cases that if I was the winemaker, I would really like to know more, in an objective way, so that I can assess the situation.

Cheers.

If I say it, I mean it…and I’ll say why. Usually that is a serious flaw that would cause an involuntary physical reaction. I haven’t seen DNPIM (do not put in mouth) used here for a long time, but that’s more about the wine smelling so bad that discretion rules. But, there are non-flawed wines that are extreme. Some very young cult Cabs are so tannic they would make me sick if I swallowed. Some wines are pretty much undrinkable young, but will resolve. Then there are some bottom shelf Trader Joe’s wines that were dumbly over-extracted, with an insane degree of nasty green sap. Did they grind the clusters?

If there is ambiguity in the note as to how the word is used, and because this board allows two-way communication, a reader can ask the poster a question. Better that in my view than to characterize a note using the term as an outrage. Just my opinion obviously

Neal,

I wouldn’t characterize it as an ‘outrage’ - just not helpful. Heck, it’s only wine we’re talking about here . . .

Cheers.

There are two kinds of undrinkable. Flawed and pour down sink- not subjectively undrinkable.

Or just so much not my style that I can’t drink it- undrinkable for ME. i.e. someone poured me a glass of buena vista cab with a ton of RS the other day and it just gave me a headache- I had a couple of sips and switched to water.