If you've been following along at all, first: I'm sorry; second, then you know I'm wine-challenged like your worst nightmare.
I'm catching up on some reading of the links over there in the sidebar, and I'm reading Eric Asimov's post Summing up Wine in Two Words. Also the comments. Mr. Asimov writes,
"In my column on Wednesday, I tried to retrieve the ideal of simplicity and apply it to wine descriptions. Instead of trying to over-describe a wine in irrelevant detail, I suggest that we limit ourselves to one of two words, sweet or savory."
It made me think of the wine description I recently posted, cut and paste from an entry on Snooth.com:
"Very sweet wild fruit on the nose that is a bit figgy and fudgy with a strong vegetal top note, and a vivid streak of tar. Broad and expansive in the mouth with a wonderful transparent feel to the pure red fruits. This really floats in the mouth with a nice accent of tannin helping to give it some shape. The finish read more...is long and really driven by that tannin which adds a nice earthy note to the finale 89pts"
Versus, say, this description I read yesterday while checking out Soter Vineyards Brut Rose:
"A deep salmon pink in color, it offers up an alluring bouquet of biscuit, rose petal, minerals, strawberry, and raspberry. Medium to full-bodied, rich, and flavorful on the palate, this vibrant effort is impeccably balanced and lengthy."
One of these descriptions is intriguing and makes me want to taste that stuff; the other makes me point and laugh, but both are (obviously) more than two words, so maybe it not the amount of words that is the issue, but the words.
Still, in the comments section, I much appreciated this one:
"makes me think of a tasting note by michael broadbent that captivated me on some claret or another in one of his 'great vintage wine' books: "lovely. four stars". nuff said."
Good style, indeed.