Changing Taste over Time?

[R_Frankel]

TLDR: Wow, my wine taste has changed a lot in the last 15 years. California and Bordeaux once dominated, but now are basically zeros. Red Burgundy and Piedmont Nebbiolo have held steady, and N. Rhone Syrah, German Riesling and Champagne have risen to be major elements of my wine fascination.

One of the best pieces of advice I got at the beginning of my serious wine (buying) journey was to start slow and learn what I like before diving in deep. And, of course, I ignored that advice! Instead I tried a few things and bought a lot. Enthusiasm, hurry, FOMO, who knows? But of course, it turns out that my taste has evolved a lot and so much of what I bought deeply early on now I’m less enthusiastic about. Happily I have 12 years of CT data that begins soon after I fell deep down the rabbit hole of this crazy/delicious hobby. Here’s how my wine obsession has evolved:

The biggest shock to my storage has been California. I live in San Francisco, have easy access to local wineries, and have visited many all across the state. I’ve bought nearly as much locally as from any other region. In 2014 California sold me about a third of my (mostly red) bottles, and in 2015 it was over 40%. Yes, I got sucked into lists, and annual buying FOMO. But: California been declining steadily since then, and this year? Zero. I’ve drank a lot of those bottles, but luckily there’s a pretty vibrant re-sale market for good California wine, so I have moved a lot through local auction houses.

Largest by volume (and yes, price) in my cellar is Burgundy, and I’ve been buying it pretty steadily since I started. However, my red Burg purchases have been declining the last few years as value has really shrunk (as we have discussed here many, many times). White Burg, on lower volumes, has fallen off a cliff the last few years, with zero this year! I definitely like the stuff, and will drink down my cellar with pleasure, but I find, to my taste, the value is just not there compared to many other wine regions. I have also learned that my early buying was extremely scattershot and ill informed. Still, I’m happy with what I have and am focused more on buying back vintages that are so much cheaper than current releases.

Bordeaux has also declined a lot, going from a staple 25% of my purchases, to a very occasional back vintage pick up (basically zero). Piedmont has held steady, perhaps my most consistent love. And N. Rhone has come from out of nowhere to being about a third of my buying these days. That’s my “newest” big love.

Like many here, Champagne has also increased steadily. I’ve always bought a bit, but the last few years has seen that jump to almost 15% of my purchases, and I am always thinking I need to buy more. Finally, German Riesling has, in the last 5 years or so, nearly replaced all other white wine purchases, as I find it scratches my itch for dry, off-dry and sweet wines.

How have y’all’s taste evolved?

[Jeff_Leve]

I’m obviously simple. My tastes have not moved a lot over the years. The biggest change has been a move from massive, concentrated wines, though those wines were never a large part of my cellar. Today, I do not think I own any wines in that style.

However, my favorite regions remain my favorite regions, Bordeaux, Rhône Valley with a much stronger lean to Cote Rotie and Hermitage, but with love for Chateauneuf as well.

[Rahsaan_M]

Maybe it helped that I started getting into wine early in my grad school days, so I didn’t have a lot of money for loading up on purchases beyond immediate consumption.

I spent several years drinking fairly widely (within European regions) and slowly concentrated on a handful of favorite regions over 10-15 years of ‘practice’.

But I started with the Loire and that remains a core taste, so my preferences haven’t moved all that much.

I’ve also never understood FOMO with wine. There’s so much of it and they make more each year!

[Larry_Stein]

Mine hasn’t because of how long I’ve been tasting/drinking wine. I joined my first tasting group with folks ITB in 1979. Everything was old school then (Bordeaux and California, especially) so that’s how my palate has always been aligned.

I still buy some CA wine, but those wineries (Ladd Cellars and Sandar & Hem) make their wines in the old school style. The wineries I bottle for are the same (Neely, Sandler/August West, also bottle for Sandar & Hem). I offload my Ridge Monte Bello allocation to a friend who is younger than me. However, Ridge’s non-Chardonnay whites (Alder Springs Falanghina and Grenache Blanc) are high acid, low alcohol wines. Right in my wheelhouse.

[Ben_M_a_n_d_l_e_r]

My tastes have remained pretty consistent over the 15-20 years I’ve been into wine. I never developed the love for Pinot Noir that everyone told me I would (or should…) and instead fell head over heels for, of all things, California Syrah. That seems to be a durable love at this point - and they’re durable wines - so I feel happy with the trajectory so far. Who knows, maybe in 20, or 40 years, I’ll crave something new. I hope so, but I can’t see my love ever fading for the three things that got me into wine in the first place - Bordeaux, Rioja, and Riesling.

[Jim_Cowan]

Away from Cabernet Sauvignon, heavy reds and anything with noticeable oak.
Also, as I age, away from anything requiring significant cellar time.
And lastly, toward less expensive/less well known labels that I can buy by the case and follow for several years.

[John_Morris]

@Jim_Cowan

Also, as I age, away from anything requiring significant cellar time.

Unripe bananas are also off the shopping list.

[Joshua_Kates]

I use to regularly drink California Cab and Pinot, which I did not cellar, and some Bordeaux, which I did. Then I bought a fair bit of Barolo and red Burgundy, and finally moved to white Burgundy, which was the last of my major purchases. In the meantime, I snuck back into Bordeaux and have always but widely collected in other parts of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Oregon, the Rhone and the Loire to name but these. (Very little from Germany, SA or Australia.) It’s been a fun ride, but I buy no more and I am beginning to unwind my collection, as I can’t drink in the quantities I once could.

[R_Frankel]

@Jeff_Leve I’ve read and enjoyed many of your comments and perspectives here on WB as well as your web site, and I’ve never thought of you as simple! But I’m curious how your love of wine transformed into a career - was it a conscious, deliberate plan, or did your passion for wine drag you into it?

[Max_S1]

Ive onky been drinking wine more seriouslyfpr maybe 5 years, but my taste has changed a lot in that time. Started with big Napa cabs and amarone that, at the time, I loved. Have picked up an avversion to high alcohol and extractuon. I like older whites a lot more now and am spending too much time with my eyes glued to Winebid looking for the next steal of a 15-20 year old spatlese or auslese. Or Huet demi. Love me some Oregon pinot and more restrained Napa cabs. Need to taste more Bordeaux.

[Ravi_Raju]

I have always had broad tastes based on food, season and mood, but my tastes have definitely shifted from wines that finish with sweet tannins and a rounded finish to those that finish with savory tannins and higher acidity.

[Adam_Frisch]

Started big, then PN, went natural, then to Zin and Syrah and now I’m enjoying Cab again (but they have to be earthy and on the leaner side and with little oak).

In alcohol, I started plus sized (Amarone), went really lean for many years, now I’m excited by wines around 13.5%-14.5% again. 12% reds are no longer as exciting as they were 10 years ago.

[Otto_Forsberg]

Got slowly into wine some 15 years ago, tasted stuff here and there, slowly figured out that I like acidity, rather lean fruit profile and wines from lighter end of the spectrum - both from the body and alcohol perspective. A wine can be ridiculously tannic or have no tannins at all, and I don’t mind - although usually the bigger a wine is, the more I expect it to have some tannic structure, as usually those wines don’t have enough acidity to carry all the mass on acidity alone.

At first some heavily oaked wines impressed me (I came from a beer and whisky background, so the aromas and taste of oak were something familiar), but the more I tasted wines, the more I realized that oak homogenizes the wine. A wine can show great sense of place, but oak always tastes like oak. At some point I was even less tolerant of oak than I am now - for example most white Burgs tasted too oaky for me back then and I preferred mainly classic Chablis wines with no noticeable oak influence - but even today I still prefer very minuscule new oak impact. Preferably as close to zero as possible.

Although I like lighter wines, I don’t mind bigger and burlier wines, but they need to be quite structured to feel balanced to me, as big, ripe wines with very little in the way of acidity or tannins feel just too heavy, clumsy and blowzy on my palate.

@Ravi_Raju

I have always had broad tastes based on food, season and mood, but my tastes have definitely shifted from wines that finish with sweet tannins and a rounded finish to those that finish with savory tannins and higher acidity.

I’ve asked around many times, but I’ve never received a good explanation: what are sweet tannins? Tannins are tactile, they don’t impart a taste (apart from bitterness, in sufficiently high concentrations), so the term has always seemed complete gibberish to me. (This was also the first time that I ever heard of savory tannins.)

[larry_schaffer]

@Otto_Forsberg

I’ve asked around many times, but I’ve never received a good explanation: what are sweet tannins? Tannins are tactile, they don’t impart a taste (apart from bitterness, in sufficiently high concentrations), so the term has always seemed complete gibberish to me. (This was also the first time that I ever heard of savory tannins.)

I agree with you - but I also understand that we all use ‘verbiage’ differently. One person’s ‘barnyard’ is another’s ‘earthy’ and they are both correct.

Kind of like many talking about ‘undrrripe’ or ‘green’ tannins vs ‘ripe’ tannins - what they are most likely talk about are lower or higher quantities or shorter chain vs longer chain tannins.

Cheers

[Otto_Forsberg]

@larry_schaffer

I agree with you - but I also understand that we all use ‘verbiage’ differently. One person’s ‘barnyard’ is another’s ‘earthy’ and they are both correct.

Kind of like many talking about ‘undrrripe’ or ‘green’ tannins vs ‘ripe’ tannins - what they are most likely talk about are lower or higher quantities or shorter chain vs longer chain tannins.

Cheers

I am all for describing the wine however one tastes it; as you said, one’s barnyard can be another’s earthy, or one can taste lingonberry where other tastes loganberry. And so forth.

However, “sweet tannins” is something I see used quite widely, but as a term, it has never opened up to me in any way. I just don’t understand what kind of property, characteristic, sensation or taste one is trying to convey with that term. If they are describing tannins, how they can be sweet? If they are tasting sweetness, why on earth would someone ascribe that to tannins?

[Ravi_Raju]

Otto – you know way more than I do and you are correct relative to tannins, but I often see the words “sweet tannins” in tasting notes and I am using it as seen (perhaps incorrectly). Ultimately, though it is not the tannins specifically, for me my tastes have changed in terms of how the wine finishes. Does it finish sweet or does it finish savory? I have much less tolerance these days for wines that seem to finish sweet with a dose of RS.

Interestingly enough, I almost added to my post above that I have come to appreciate “balance”. Your description of that is a good one. Big wines with balance are great. Those that have too much oak, too much fruit (left unbalanced by a lack of acidity) leading to a lingering sweet finish, and those that have very short finishes are things I pay much more attention to in my journey and detract from my enjoyment.

[Otto_Forsberg]

Alright, that makes much more sense. It’s just the taste of sweetness or the lack of it - savoriness - and not really anything to do with tannins. That I can understand perfectly (but this turn still doesn’t help me understanding the term in question any better!)

Anyways, when it comes to tannins, they often can feel more pronounced in the finish as the wine exits the mouth - they are what make the wine feel astringent, ie. they dry up your mouth. Wines with aggressive / tough / grippy / green / harsh tannins make your mouth dry up more and faster, whereas wines with soft / friendly / mellow / supple / gentle / ripe tannins might make your mouth dry up very little if at all.

A wine with only a little bit of aggressive, grippy tannins might make the finish feel quite coarse and gritty, even if not particularly tannic, whereas a wine with a lot of ripe, gentle tannins might make the finish feel powdery, slowly piling up on the gums and gradually making the wine turn more tannic and grippy, even if it initially wasn’t.

When writing tasting notes, I usually describe both if the wine finishes with a sweeter or drier, more savory aftertaste and how the tannins feel in the finish, but (at least to me) they are two completely different aspects. Although not completely unrelated to each other - ample tannins can help a sweeter-fruited wine finish with a more savory aftertaste by simply overwhelming the palate, sort of reducing the capacity to taste the sweetness of the fruit as intensely. This is also one of the key reasons why I look for firm, stern tannic structure in ripe, bold red wines!

[LasseK]

I slowly started my wine journey in my mid-twenties, but didn’t really begin seeking out and collecting wines until my late twenties—so about a decade ago.

I started out pretty classic, as I was introduced to Barolo, Burgundy, and Tempranillo-based Spanish wines. Nothing truly high-end, but very decent stuff. As I became obsessed with wine, I got into the Copenhagen wine scene, which at the time was heavily focused on “natural wine.” That turned into a long journey. In the beginning, I couldn’t get enough funk. I loved the borderline crazy wines, but over time they all started to feel the same, and mousiness became a big issue. This led me back toward the kinds of wines I started with.

That said, I learned a lot from that journey and still love and buy a lot of wine in that genre. From experience, I just learned where to look and how to sort out the bad ones. So, what did I learn? Today, I’m still a high-acidity freak. Noticeable oak is often an issue for me in young wines. A balanced “edge” can be awesome when it comes to things like brett and VA. I love wines that are highly aromatic with light palates.

I’ve been all over the place in the past decade, but I have no regrets. The journey is truly the best part. These days, I have a more focused taste, and my cellar is more classical than “natural,” but I think I’ve found a great balance for my preferences. Luckily, my curiosity still gets the better of me from time to time.

So yes my taste have changed. It has constantly been adjusted. But the changes and frequency of change is becoming less.

[Steve_McL]

Started 25 years ago on a budget with Spanish Tempranillo and Garnacha (one could do worse) then got into Southern Rhônes and CnDPs. I liked them big and Grenache-dominant and thought barnyard and Brett were normal, even positive. I definitely did NOT like Pinot then, nor any whites. I stored in my dining room in a grownup’s wooden tinker-toy contraption that sort of metastasized over time.

5 years in, a big fruit-forward Cali Pinot knocked my socks off and I learned you could actually get wine SHIPPED to your house! I bought a case, an unheard of quantity of a single producer’s wine for me back then. (Cue the slippery slope). Eventually landed on Oregon Pinots (Brooks was the catalyst) and spent years chasing OR wines. Tried entry-level red Burgs many times, and was turned off by the roulette of thin, tannic juice at a high (for me) price and a 1 out of 5 hit rate for delicious accessible pleasure (Sigaut Chambolle Noirots was an early winner tho…still is - I just like black fruited Pinot).

15 years in, tried an 09 Gouges NSG Porrets and the angels sang. Since then, it’s been all Burgundy, all the time. Soon discovered that white wine in general and Chardonnay in particular was a thing (Doh).

In recent years, have added some Riesling to the repertoire and we drink champagne a lot more, but I’m still stuck on Burgs.

[JBierly]

I think this is a great topic of conversation - almost deserving of a separate thread. My experience with this concept would be limited primarily to Northern Cali Cabs and Bordeaux. I think I first read a description of sweet tannins in a Parker note years ago - at first I thought what does that mean? I think a better descriptor is ripe tannins. Perhaps the simplest way to think about it is the antonym of “bitter” is “sweet.” So if the tannins aren’t bitter then they are sweet?! But to not overthink it, I don’t think I ever experienced super ripe tannins (true “phenolic ripeness”) in the 70’s or 80’s Bords or Cali Cabs that I drank 40 years ago. Tannins were bitter and terribly astringent at worst and perhaps supple at best in young wines. Aging helped a lot but never gave a profile of “sweet tannins.”

Fast forward a few decades. Climate change along with changes in wine making have dramatically changed how these wines finish in the mouth. Maybe the simplest way for me to state it is that crappy wines still have bitter tannins (which still is better than no tannin). I feel like I taste less wines with terribly astringent tannins on release than say 30 years ago. lNow granted, some crappy wines soften with age and for those who think '75 Bordeaux is drinking great now that is what you may prefer. I will say that I have had a few '02 Bords in the last few years which I thought were pretty awful in youth due to a lack of ripe fruit and with pretty bleak astringent tannins that actually are pretty damn good with age on them. But softening is not the same as sweet.

For me, sweet tannins are when there is not bitter astringency to the finish and yet the puckering and drying on the side of your mouth makes you feel like you can barely talk for a minute because they linger so long. Yeah, that’s it. It is more a California thing at least in my limited experience. I probably need to try some more Bords from riper vintages to see how much it is apparent in those wines.