If wine has a cassis note, it shouldn’t be described as something else–would it be a smaller, sweeter, more intense, raspberryish sort of French liqueur flavor? Isn’t it simpler to describe it as what it is in the fewest appropriate words? If the reader or listener doesn’t understand, they might look it up.

I’m not sure sweaty saddle is a metaphor that would attract me, not knowing whether it was the top or bottom side of the saddle that had been sweated upon, but worn, rich leather might do the job. No Corinthians need apply with all due respect for Ricardo Montalban.

If someone who has never smoked needs to know what “cigar box” or “tobacco” smells like, they could readily drop into a tobacconist and revel in the richness of the aromas. Pick up a Monte Cristo #1 and run it beneath your nose and breath deeply–you’ll understand. And, the two descriptors in question aren’t regarding the by-product of combustion, but the deep aromas of the pre-burned herb.

As for “Brett” and “malo-lactic”, I’ll confess to ignorance until one day I was describing a flawed wine and someone said that sounds like “Brett” and then I knew. A buttery Chard which I’d always thought came from some oaking process was explained as malo-lactic fermentation. I got wiser, if not better looking, through the process.

Dumbing down the language because of ignorance of the audience isn’t a direction I’d recommend.