Writing Tasting Notes

A good tasting note captures an impression you can return to: a recognisable smell, a texture, something that lingers. Charles MacLean’s examples included “Parma violets” and “a beach bonfire”, the first as a simile and the second as a metaphor.[3] The aim is to make what you notice recognisable, whether for yourself or someone else. Start with appearance, nose, palate and a conclusion, the structure used by the Wine and Spirit Education Trust (WSET), then choose specific descriptions rather than a string of compliments.[1]

Writing tasting notes: what to record

“Malted barley, medicinal smoke, warming texture” gives a reader something to recognise. “Excellent” tells them only that the writer approved. A useful note separates description from judgement. WSET’s approach makes room for both, with observations organised before the conclusion.[1]

Use the framework below as a writing template. Give most space to the features that distinguish the whisky; there is no need to fill every line equally or find every sensation it suggests.

At tastings, use small measured servings, provide water and food, and take breaks. Spitting is normal, and nobody needs to finish a glass. None of these steps removes the risks of alcohol. People who are pregnant or trying to conceive, taking medicines that interact with alcohol, living with conditions made worse by alcohol, or recovering from alcohol dependence should not drink. See Responsible Drinking for further guidance.

This adapts WSET’s Appearance, Nose, Palate and Conclusions structure, giving finish its own writing space.[1] For the tasting itself, use the complete tasting guide. Here, the task is to turn observations into a readable record.

Hypothetical example, using selected entries: “Malted barley and medicinal smoke on the nose. A mouthfilling texture becomes more warming. Smoke remains prominent through a long finish. The persistent smoke and developing texture hold the attention.” The judgement follows from the observations.

Choose recognisable smells, not impressive words

The best aroma word is one your reader can recognise. MacLean described whisky description as largely a matter of putting words to smells, while recognising that an allusion works only if the reader knows the smell.[3] A comparison familiar to you may need a plainer description for someone else.

Begin with something familiar. WSET’s malted barley vocabulary includes husk, porridge, barley, malt, flour and oatmeal; its smoke vocabulary distinguishes peat, medicinal notes, smoked fish, seaweed smoke, iodine and char.[1] Choose among these descriptions when they fit, rather than copying them into every note.

If you recognise only “smoke”, write smoke. If you can narrow it to medicinal smoke or charred vegetables, do so. Precision earns its place when it captures your observation, not when it borrows certainty from someone else’s description.

Research draws a useful distinction between naming a smell and evaluating it. In a study of 63 people, comprising wine experts, coffee experts and novices, experts used more source-based terms, such as “cherries”, for their own specialist drink. Novices used more evaluative words such as “nice”. The experts’ advantage was modest and confined to their own domain, not evidence of universal descriptive superiority.[4]

When the word will not come, consult the whisky flavour wheel for prompts, then return to what you can smell.

Describe texture and change in plain language

Describe what happens, not just what is there. WSET Level 3 specifically instructs students: “Describe the texture of the spirit in full sentences and record how it changes over time.”[2] The same instruction serves a home notebook well. A sentence can capture movement that a pile of adjectives misses.

Before keeping a broad word, ask what it means. MacLean warned that abstract descriptions could be imprecise: “soft”, for example, might mean suppressed pungency or a gentle mouthfeel.[3] If you mean texture, say so. If an aroma is restrained, describe the aroma instead.

WSET Level 2 includes watery, mouthfilling, warming and rough among its texture examples.[1] Use them where they fit. A sentence explaining that a mouthfilling texture becomes more warming tells the reader more than two disconnected adjectives, when that is the development you observed.

Keep flavours and sensations distinguishable in your draft. Read it back and check that you have described the whisky’s texture as well as its smell. A long aroma list cannot stand in for the whole experience, however carefully chosen its individual words.

Give the finish its own job

A finish has both duration and character. WSET Level 2 records its length as short, medium or long, and its nature separately as neutral, simple, some complexity or very complex.[1] One tells you how long an impression remains; the other tells you what it contains.

Use two short prompts: “How long?” and “What remains?” Do not ask “long” to carry the entire description. Nor should a brief finish automatically become a negative judgement. Explain that assessment in the conclusion rather than hiding it inside a word about duration.

Give the finish entry something different to say from the palate entry. When a descriptor belongs in both, explain its persistence rather than repeating the same list. You might record whether smoke remains prominent or whether the warming sensation becomes the main impression, according to the development you notice.

There is no need to discover a new flavour after every sip. A concise account of what remains does the job.

Separate your judgement from your description

Quality is an assessment, not another aroma. WSET Level 2 offers a quality scale running from faulty through poor, acceptable, good and very good to outstanding.[1] A personal notebook need not adopt the scale, but it benefits from keeping observation and assessment separate.

WSET Level 3 asks students to consider balance and expressiveness, including the question: “Are the aromas balanced with the textures?”[2] That gives a conclusion something firmer to rest on than enthusiasm alone.

Write your observations first, then add one sentence explaining your judgement. If you enjoyed the whisky, identify what held your attention. If something felt out of proportion, describe that relationship. “Bad” leaves the reader with little to work with.

Keep personal preference explicit, too. Preferring the aroma to the palate reports your response; saying “the palate lacked expression” makes a claim that needs descriptive support. These are different kinds of statement. Adding a score does not, by itself, make either more useful.

Edit for precision, not length

Find the words that fit, rather than the words that sound approved. WSET says its Level 3 lexicon “is only a guide” and accepts other accurate descriptors.[2] A tasting note does not have to sound like published copy or demonstrate a memorised vocabulary.

MacLean’s distinction between calibrated trade panels and consumers tasting for pleasure is useful here.[3] Your personal notebook need not resemble a laboratory record. A note written for other readers, however, should avoid private references they cannot interpret.

Metaphor can make an impression memorable, but precision is a different task. Croijmans and Majid noted that published tasting notes use metaphor and personification for literary effect, whereas participants asked for precise descriptions used very few metaphors.[4]

When editing, underline the words that identify a smell, flavour, texture or change. Then examine everything else. Keep a comparison if it clarifies the impression; cut it if it merely decorates the sentence. Aim to preserve the observations that distinguish this whisky, not to lengthen the note with approval.

Avoid three common tasting-note mistakes

Treating an expert note as an objective answer

Context influences description, even when tasters have expertise. A wine experiment offers a striking example of colour’s influence, though its findings concern wine rather than whisky.[5]

Story box: How colour shaped wine descriptions

Claim: Tasters used red wine descriptors for a white wine dyed red.

Verdict: Documented

Morrot, Brochet and Dubourdieu reported that 54 oenology undergraduates described a white wine dyed red with odourless grape anthocyanins using red wine descriptors.[5] The experiment studied wine, not whisky.

Earliest known source: Morrot, Brochet and Dubourdieu, The Color of Odors, 2001. The claim and experiment details come from https://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist62n/morrot01colorofodors.pdf.

Last checked: November 2026; exact day to be confirmed by the editor.

Write your own observations before comparing them with published notes. To explore tasting with less label information, see blind tasting whisky.

Assuming every professional panel tastes completely blind

The Scotch Malt Whisky Society’s panel is told the make, cask and age, according to a published account of its process.[8] The words “panel note” alone therefore do not tell you how much information the writers had.

When sharing notes, state whether you knew the whisky’s identity. Readers can then understand the context in which you wrote. Neither knowing the identity nor tasting blind guarantees a correct description.

Borrowing technical words without defining them

“Silky” becomes more specific when tasters share a reference. In descriptive analysis, terms can be attached to physical references: Ickes and Cadwallader’s rum research used almond milk for “silky” and overbrewed green tea for “astringent”.[12] That gives the words a more precise basis than two readers interpreting the same adjective independently.

In everyday notes, explain an ambiguous term rather than assuming a shared meaning. Describe the sensation first. Bring in specialist vocabulary when it makes that description clearer.

Where to go next

• Nosing Whisky: How to Smell It Properly: concentrate on recognising and describing aromas.
• Finish, Body and Mouthfeel Explained: distinguish texture from flavour and persistence.
• Running a Whisky Tasting at Home: organise a tasting around a shared method.

Sources

1. Wine and Spirit Education Trust. WSET Level 2 Systematic Approach to Tasting Spirits. Issue 2.1, 2026.
   https://www.wsetglobal.com/media/18951/wset_l2spirits_sat_en_aug2026_issue21.pdf

2. Wine and Spirit Education Trust. WSET Level 3 Systematic Approach to Tasting Spirits. Issue 3, 2025.
   https://www.wsetglobal.com/media/16506/wset_l3spirits_sat_en_feb2025_issue3.pdf

3. Whisky Magazine, Charles MacLean. Sensorary evaluation. 1999, as dated in the supplied fact sheet.
   https://whiskymag.com/articles/1-sensorary-evaluation/

4. Croijmans, I. and Majid, A. Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts. PLOS ONE, 2016.
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4913926/

5. Morrot, G., Brochet, F. and Dubourdieu, D. The Color of Odors. Brain and Language, 2001.
   https://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist62n/morrot01colorofodors.pdf

6. World of Fine Spirits. Inside Scotch Malt Whisky Society's Secretive Tasting Panel. Undated in the supplied fact sheet.
   https://worldoffinespirits.com/stories/scotch-whisky/scotch-malt-whisky-society-casks

7. Ickes, C. M. and Cadwallader, K. R. Effect of ethanol on flavor perception of Rum. Food Science and Nutrition. Publication year to be verified.
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6021708/

This desk-researched article draws on the supplied verified fact sheet, using its WSET frameworks, published commentary and sensory research; it reports no site tasting.

Last checked: November 2026