The traditional explanation is that you taste the wine to make sure it's not corked, but this explanation never made a lot of sense to me. First of all, wine doesn't get corked all that often — I've received corked wine maybe three times in years of eating at restaurants. Second, you could figure out it was corked after it was poured. Why the necessity to taste it first? And third, waiters go through the tasting ceremony even if it's a screwtop bottle or plastic cork, which means the wine isn't going to be corked.
But I recently came across an alternative explanation in Benjamin Walker's
Encyclopedia of Esoteric Man:
'tasting' used to be the common preliminary rite in ancient times. Generally the first drink was taken by the chief of a tribe because he had to be served first as the representative of the god. It also symbolically lifted the taboo that prohibited drinking on ordinary occasions, and neutralized the mana that inheres in sacramental drinks. It was also an assurance to guests that the drink was not poisoned.
Even today in western society the man ordering a bottle of wine for his companions, or offering wine to guests, often has the first sip from his glass and then has the other glasses filled. This is a survival of the old 'tasting' custom, by which the host 'approved' the drink, and ensured that it was free from poison. In Moslem countries the ruler had an official taster, and only after he had tried the sultan's food and drink in his presence without ill effects, did the latter partake of them himself.
I have a hunch Walker is right — that there's nothing very rational about wine tasting in restaurants. It's just long-established ritual. But, of course, there are all kinds of odd customs and superstitions associated with wine, so that shouldn't be too surprising.
Comments
I do think Walker has missed a more basic element of the tradition, though: showing off. By following the ritual - smelling the cork, tasting the wine, muttering about the flavorw - one is proclaiming oneself as an expert on the matter, with all the smug pretension that follows such things.
Me, I'm fond of the reds from the Charles Shaw wineries, aka 'Two Buck Chuck'. I did have a rather excellent Moselland Riesling recently. Tasted *exacty* like biting into a Granny Smith apple.
Drinking wine is and in the past certainly was a social event (unless you are an alcoholic). Tasting basically avoids a host of a dinner the embarrasment of discovering too late that (s)he served spoiled or bad wine to his guests. I doubt it has anything to do with poison. It has to do with avoiding social embarrassment.
Yet I do think the main purpose was and is simply to see whether the wine has no "cork", both to avoid social embarrasment with respect to the guests and to avoid unpleasant side-effect of even mildly corked wine (which not everybody might detect). It is not just that 'corked' wine tastes less good: drinking wine with 'cork' also leads to bad hangovers.
If the client who was offered a taste and rejected it it was clear to us that he was just trying to impress his guests (who in 99% of the cases were of the younger female variety...). ALL bottles rejected by customers were fine. No exception.
And indeed with really old wines the cork can screw up the wine. But those were always intercepted and replaced even before the customer got his snobbish lips on it.
The good thing was that I (and my wife) learned a lot about wines and tasted a lot of the "rejects", some very exclusive... 😊
Screw-top wies and plastic cork wines are rarely "corked", and if those wines have "turned", it wil likely be for other reasons.. Other types of contamination are "cooked" wine, which are a result of heat damage and a number of other problems which are a rare in comparison. Sniffing a cork tells you very little, as most corks have trace amounts of mold, which may not reflect the condition of the wine. Tasting the wine first is essential, as it is the best way to indicate if the wine has "turned".