Perhaps it’s different in blind tastings? Blind, colour is probably the first piece of information before nose then palate. So having a corpus of information on usual colours of wines can be helpful.
I’d certainly agree that nowadays with modern winemaking techniques it has little to do with quality and should not be reflected in scores (aside from a wrong colour indicating a faulty wine, but then again a faulty wine will be getting low marks all around so why an extra penalty for colour).
So if you are actually trying to identify a wine blind; the appearance of wine, of which color is one component, is very important. This is an abbreviated version of deductive reasoning for the appearance of the wine.
Surface brightness: a clue to stability A bright surface indicates a sound wine
Surface brightness: a clue to maturity A bright surface can indicates a youthful wine, a dull surface can indicate a mature wine
Surface brightness: a clue to variey or region Acidity reflects light, cool climate and certain grapes varieties yield higher acid
Clarity: clue to winemaking style More particles means sedimentation from age or less fining and filtration
Hue of color: a clue to variety Cabernet Sauvignon typical Purple /ruby, Pinot noir is typically ruby
Hue of color: a clue to maturity Red wines lose color with age while white wines gain color
Hue of color: a clue to maturity Green notes in white wine indicate cool climate or youth
Depth of Color: clue to winemaking style and place of origin Deeper more saturated color indicates more extractive winemaking or warm climate
Color Gradation: a clue to maturity Mature wines show a greater degree of variation from core to rim
Rim width: a clue to wine making and style Narrow clear band indicates warmer climate or more extractive wine making Wide clear band indicates cooler climate or less extractive wine making
Mark - for many years I would do blind tasting every week. Maybe same grape, different places; same winemaker, different vineyards; same vintage, different regions; same wine, different vintages; different grapes, same vintage; and so on. Usually all the glasses were in front of you and you would be told about the theme, nothing else.
ALL rules of thumb fall by the wayside. If you tell me I’m having ten vintages of Dunn Howell Mountain across two decades and I’m supposed to order them by age, maybe I can, but just as likely I can’t because that’s a wine that remains impenetrable for years and some vintages age much more slowly than others. If it’s Volnay, Rioja, or whatever, same thing.
Sometimes it’s easy but I have missed by decades. Once or twice I was able to identify specifically “Oh this is Vina Real 1953,” and in a million years I would never be able to do that again. I’m not even sure how I did it other than the fact that I’d just had it a week earlier.
But all those things help only if you’re already on track. Otherwise they mislead you.
Color is nice to note just because it’s part of the wine and becomes part of your memory bank, much like taste. But the only way to really identify a wine is to taste a lot of it and pay attention. And then there is still no guarantee you’re going to be correct because of the circumstances and what is called your behavioral state. If you’re interested, here’s a short and understandable article that accounts for what I think is behind a lot of the problems people have with tasting notes and with their own memories of a wine.
Wes - I have seen those formulas, just never really knew what they were. But if I recall, Parker awarded a wine 50 points just for showing up, so why not award something for color. It’s completely ridiculous to do so, as you point out.
In some respects yes. It’s useful when a wine does not look like you would expect it to, e.g. browning in colour / at the rim, or much darker / lighter than expected. A dull colour also alerts to a wine that might be light on acidity. The information is useful in a tasting note to fill out a picture of the wine.
However… I don’t taste colour, so when tasting, this has less use, other than to prepare me for certain things to look out for - maybe a prematurely aged wine, or one that might have little acidity - or be brimming with it.
Who doesn’t love the color of an old, well cellared Red Burgundy, or a century old wood aged fortified wine. Doesn’t it maximize the sensual enjoyment?
I agree with Alicia. In addition to what it can tell you about wine, I enjoy the color as part of the total experience (particularly wines that are still translucent).
I’m more in line with these three sentiments. The color is part of the whole wine experience. Sure, for me, taste, smell and texture are the most important aspects of the wine experience, but the appearance of a wine can also enhance the overall experience. One wine in particular stands out in my memory; 2010 Marc Plouzeau Touraine Ante Phylloxera Clos de Maulevrier had such a dramatic neon fuschia color, it was really stunning to behold. When I posted that tasting note, several others chimed in their agreement, so it wasn’t just me.
Take off your blinders!
I pay attention to color. It’s not of great importance to me, but I do make note of it.
I also employ the absurd/ridiculous/insulting/stupid/moronic/asinine practice of assigning up to 5 points to a wine for its appearance (which is comprised of more than Color, by the way).
Color is part of the equation; if you want to ignore it because you don’t think it’s important, then – by all means – do so. But I don’t get the point of criticizing others about it.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}