At the 10-minute mark, the video notes that more people in the wine world are using the term “minerality” to describe wines than ever before. For those of you who follow my notes, you may have noticed that it is a term that I use a lot. I personally do not buy the argument (which seems to be implicit in this video) that people are talking about minerality because it is “fashionable” or “trendy.” I use the term to express a characteristic in the wine.
My goal when writing tasting notes is not to be trendy or hit certain keywords. Tasting, to me, will always be a personal, subjective experience. I avoid the use of varietal tables while I am tasting because I don’t want information about what a wine “should” taste like to bias my conclusions. I try, to the best of my ability, to describe wines based on what I am truly tasting. I have never actually gotten down on the ground to lick a rock. But I do know what I smell and taste when I walk on the beach where there are seashells all around me. When I describe a wine as being “mineral,” that is the type of impression or image I am trying to convey. This is akin to saying that a wine tastes like forest floor. I have never actually gotten down on my knees to taste forest floor. Yet, when I smell a wine that is “earthy,” it reminds me of the distinctive smells of the forest.
My two cents: who cares what words we use to describe wines? There has been an increase in the use of the term “minerality.” Instead of suggesting that this is a fad, why not understand it as an evolution in the language being used to describe what we taste? In my opinion, the more descriptors of wine, the better!