ISG Sommelier common mistakes
ISG Sommelier · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Memorizing grape variety names but not the soil, slope, and climate conditions that make each variety perform in a given appellation, so questions that ask why Sangiovese or Riesling succeeds in a specific zone are answered by variety alone.
Candidates often build vocabulary lists from tasting notes and labels, which emphasize variety and flavor descriptors over the viticultural reasoning behind site selection.
What to do instead
For each major variety, write a one-page site profile: preferred soil type, heat summation needs, slope and aspect, drainage, and frost or drought risk. Then practice explaining in two sentences why that variety thrives or struggles in three named regions.
Treating malolactic fermentation, lees contact, and oak regime as interchangeable 'winemaking' answers instead of linking each technique to its specific sensory and structural outcome.
Enology is often studied as a procedural checklist, so candidates learn that a technique exists without rehearsing what it does to acidity, texture, aroma, and stability.
What to do instead
Build a technique-to-outcome table with four columns: technique, chemical change, sensory result, and typical wine style. Recite it aloud from memory and test yourself by naming the technique from the sensory description, not the reverse.
Describing wines with vague hedges such as 'nice acidity' or 'some oak' instead of calibrated intensity, quality level, and development terms drawn from a structured tasting vocabulary.
Candidates practice tasting informally and never anchor their palate to a fixed scale, so their language drifts toward subjective filler under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Taste in sets of three or four with a fixed grid covering appearance, nose intensity, aroma families, acidity, tannin, alcohol, body, length, quality, and readiness. Force yourself to choose a level on each axis and justify it with one observable detail.
Confusing sensory thresholds, adaptation, and the effect of temperature or glassware on perception, then applying the wrong explanation to a fault or a perceived imbalance.
Sensory science is studied as theory separate from tasting practice, so concepts stay abstract and are not linked to real glass-level observations.
What to do instead
Run simple experiments: taste the same wine at three temperatures, in two glass shapes, and after a ten-minute adaptation period. Record what changed and attach each observation to the correct sensory principle.
Answering service-sequence questions by reciting a generic order without accounting for the specific menu, wine style, or guest situation described in the scenario.
Candidates memorize a standard sequence for sparkling, white, red, and dessert wines but do not rehearse adapting it to conflicting constraints such as a sweet dish with a dry wine or a high-acidity wine with a delicate starter.
What to do instead
Practice ten pairing scenarios with explicit constraints. For each, state the principle you are applying, the recommended wine, and one credible alternative with its trade-off. Defend the choice in three sentences.
Handling decanting, temperature control, and glassware as ritual steps rather than decisions driven by the wine's structure, age, and sediment, so answers describe the procedure but not the reasoning.
Training often emphasizes performing service correctly and consistently, which rewards repetition over judgment.
What to do instead
For twenty wines, decide whether to decant, at what temperature to serve, and which glass to use, and write one sentence of justification for each. Review where your default habit conflicted with the wine's actual needs.
Calculating pour cost, markup, and inventory turnover with the wrong base, for example applying a markup multiplier to the selling price instead of the cost, or ignoring shrinkage and breakage in beverage cost.
Candidates learn formulas by rote without checking which quantity is the base, and real-world adjustments such as waste and comps are treated as an afterthought.
What to do instead
Work twenty numerical problems where you must label every input before calculating. Always compute cost of goods sold including shrinkage, then reconcile the result against actual inventory movement.
Treating the three-tier system, appellation labeling rules, and excise or tariff structures as separate facts rather than as a connected chain from producer to consumer.
Regulation is dense and is usually studied jurisdiction by jurisdiction, so candidates never map how a rule at one tier changes price or availability downstream.
What to do instead
Draw a supply-chain diagram for two contrasting markets and annotate each tier with the applicable licensing, taxation, and labeling rules. Then trace one bottle through the chain and identify every point where cost or legal constraint changes.
Confusing nutritional composition claims across beverage categories, such as calorie and sugar content per standard serving, and misapplying standard-drink definitions when estimating alcohol intake.
Candidates rely on general impressions about which drinks are lighter or sweeter instead of standardized serving sizes and labeled values.
What to do instead
Build a reference table of standard serving sizes, approximate alcohol units, and sugar and calorie ranges for beer, wine, spirits, and common mixed drinks. Practice converting a stated volume and strength into standard drinks.
Answering cultural and market questions with broad stereotypes about a country's consumption habits instead of citing specific production, consumption, or trade patterns and their historical causes.
Market knowledge is often absorbed from anecdote and marketing narratives rather than structured data, so candidates generalize confidently and inaccurately.
What to do instead
For each major market, record three verifiable facts: leading categories by volume, notable recent shifts, and one regulatory or cultural driver behind them. Practice explaining each shift with a cause rather than a description.