STFU Dept: Not you. Moi.

[bearmark]

So this reviewer says that the Reserve was sweet, but the Small Batch was sweeter. Next, the Reserve is dry. Which is it... sweet or dry? I've never had a drink that was dry enough to note in the mouth feel, yet still sweet. Sounds like someone is confused.

Which is why I have trouble describing Westerhall Plantation - it hits the nose and taste buds with honeyed sweetness, but the tongue and palate with distinct dryness. <shrug>

That's actually a useful description! I know what you mean here because you described a sweet taste followed by a dryer palate. There's a distinction and a sequence to this.

[Capn Jimbo]

Since tongue and taste buds are synonymous...


As long as it's understood that we deal with a single scale/continuum of dry <-------------------> sweet in describing a rum from moment to moment that's certainly possible. A rum that begins "sweet" on the continuum thus may then become "dry". But I'm confused by the comparison of a sweeter "nose and taste buds" with a dryer "tongue and palate" unless there's a time element here.

Since "taste buds" and "tongue" are synonymous I would take this to mean a sweet(er) nose and early palate changing to a later dryness later, say in mid to late palate?

[bearmark]

Since tongue and taste buds are synonymous...


As long as it's understood that we deal with a single scale/continuum of dry <-------------------> sweet in describing a rum from moment to moment that's certainly possible. A rum that begins "sweet" on the continuum thus may then become "dry". But I'm confused by the comparison of a sweeter "nose and taste buds" with a dryer "tongue and palate" unless there's a time element here.

Since "taste buds" and "tongue" are synonymous I would take this to mean a sweet(er) nose and early palate changing to a later dryness later, say in mid to late palate?

I guess it's helpful to pick apart our statements so that we can become more precise in our descriptions, but I basically knew what Sleepy was referring to... a sequence of sweetness followed by dryness. I've experienced some single malts that make several transitions in flavor... some of them really enhance the experience and others reveal faults.

I remember sampling a 50 year old Speyside from Master of Malt that started off fruity, then transitioned to a mildly bitter and smoky flavor mid-palate, then finally settled into a spicy and woody finish. I really enjoyed that one. To merely say that it was fruity, spicy and smoky would not be as helpful and would not do justice to the complexity of this whisky.

What the reviewer in question did was far worse because his statements provided no useful information and led to confusion. Since his intention is to guide others through his reviews, his statements are definitely fair game. I was merely pointing out that Sleepy's comments were more descriptive and useful. Personally, I welcome the opportunity to sharpen my palate and my ability to describe what I experience there, so lead on Cap'n.


*******
Capn's Log: Thanks for the clarification - I thought/hoped that's what you meant...

[sleepy]

Hmm - not sure how to clarify. Yes, taste buds are on the tongue, but aren't all that the tongue is composed of or does.

In the case of Westerhall, by taste buds, I meant to refer to the flavor that I perceived - honey, among others, hence sweet; by tongue, I referred to the sensation of the tongue surface drawing in as it might when tasting something mildly sour or acidic, hence dry.

That contrast is a great reason why everyone should devote life to finding the perfect slice of key lime pie

[Capn Jimbo]

Which raises the descriptor of tannins...


As I assume most of you may know, it is now accepted that the taste buds are capable of distinguishing five basic "tastes":

sweet (on the sweet----------------dry continuum),
salt,
sour,
bitter. and more recently...
umami (savory)

These are the five basic tastes that are now generally accepted. Mouthfeel is yet another matter and does not involve the taste buds at all, but rather the tongue as noted by Sleepy. The sensation he describes as "the sensation of the tongue surface drawing in" is not a taste at all but is a reaction to tannins. This sensation is properly called "tannic", aka "astringency", not "dry", and occurs especially on the sides of the tongue and even the cheeks toward the back of the mouth.

The descriptor of this mouth feel appears on the continuum of smooth-----------------------tannic. The inimitable Janis Robinson notes that tannins are "most noticeable in strong tea" that has been left to stand, or in the skin of walnuts as a rather crude sensation. As she describes it, "...the insides of the mouth and gums seem to pucker up in a pretty nasty way". Keep in mind that tannins are used in tanning animal skins.

OTOH the accepted tasters' definition of "dry" IS related to the taste buds. The definition of "dry" refers to "the absence of sweetness". What is confusing to many people is that they see dryness incorrectly as on the continuum of wet---------------------dry, rather than in the tasting sense of sweet----------------------dry (absence of sweetness). Dry as used in tasting does not mean dry in the ordinary sense of absence of wetness (an impossibility in tasting liquids).

Capish? Remember if you use "dry" in the sense of absence of wetness or to express the mouthfeel of tannic you may understand what you mean, but tasters will not "get" your description. Forgive me, but sometimes the proper basic tastes of "bitter" or "sour" can give a dry sensation, but now this is in the sense of absence of wetness. Still the "official" and best use of dry is generally as the "absence of sweetness". Any other use is peripheral and potentially confusing.

Actually Sleepy when I read your description I initially was tempted to ask you if you meant "tannic" rather than "dry", and apparently you did. Hope that helps...

[bearmark]

Good explanation, Cap'n. I'll try to pay more attention to that distinction as I'm sure I've described something dry when I probably meant tannic.

[Capn Jimbo]

Speaking of "tannic" astringency...


Sue Sea loves either a nice smooth Chardonnay or tannic Cabernet with dinner, depending on what she's created. These two wines are actually a good example of the smooth-----------tannic/astringent continnuum. As some may know a Cab is normally served a bit warmer than a Chardonnay and when the Cab is first served (still cool) the astringency seems most evident. But as it warms...

It smooths out. I've also experienced this with spirits that get a chance to air. Interesting?

[sleepy]

Good explanation Capn. ...but let me suggest a simple experiment: take 1/4 teaspoon of fresh lime juice and another of honey a (diluted, if you like - or just sugar in water). Taste one, then rinse, rest and then the other. How did your tongue feel with each. That's what I'm talking about - and it is distinctly not tannic, acidity certainly. Another example: bone-dry Marlborough Sauvingnon Blancs aged in steel! No tannins from aging in wood - just the sharp acetic acidity of the grapes once all of the sugars are consumed in fermentation. The flavor is usually grapefruit w/ minerals rather than lime, but the tongue response is the same as with lime juice (or dilute vinegar, for that matter). Pucker up kids

So perhaps, description was imprecise - "taste" is not just the information that the tastebuds provide, but also what the olfactory receptors have to say. Perhaps, a better expression would be that Westerhall has an aroma and flavor that suggests honeyed sweetness, but offers a distinctly dry mouth feel. Better?

[Capn Jimbo]

Agreed...


I was going to add earlier that of the five basic tastes, "sour" and "bitter" can also have tannic, aka astringent effects, but I was so busy confusing you with Bearmark and he with you, that I failed to so, lol. So thanks for bringing that up. Still the term "tannic" or "astringent" are mouthfeels and not tastes. And it remains that "dry" most typically remains in the taste continuum of "sweet".................."dry" (absence of sweet).

BTW, I mentioned your interesting experiment to Sue Sea and she reminded me of our Learning Company cooking course, wherein the CIA (Culinary Institute of America) cook/professor demonstrated tasting a piece of ripe melon, followed by another taste with a sprinkle of sugar and last, yet a final taste with a sprinkle of salt (all to illustrate the use of two of our taste buds - "sweet" and "salt").

Guess which taste was perceived as sweeter...

[sleepy]

Salt would be a strong guess. Dark chocolate w/ sea salt can have far widened richness! Salt and acidity both seem to have the capacity to expand flavor experience (in proper balance). Why, I don't know or care - I'm a population biologist, not a reductionist.

You can know a person's entire genome and know nothing MEANINGFUL about the person you converse with. You can know every molecule in a given rum and have no idea of how I will respond to its flavor vs. Jimbo, or Sue, or Bear, or Bubba!

Tasting rum ain't science, but we can learn the value of common parlance from science. That makes this current discussion valuable.