Breaking news- one needs to be skeptical of winefair medals

I'm shocked, just shocked!
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-w ... 6857.story

LINCOLN SHOT!!!

[David M. Bueker]

D'OH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, I wonder if the same thing could possibly be true of regular old folk, too.

Gee, I wonder if the same thing could possibly be true of regular old folk, too.

Not a chance. There's always an external reason for a regular fellow's inconsistency...

A friend's recommendation has always - always - been more valuable than any score, be it from Parker or any other source.

A friend's recommendation has always - always - been more valuable than any score, be it from Parker or any other source.

Particularly if that friend shares similar tastes. Conversely if my Mom loves the wine, probably I will give it a pass.

Gee, I wonder if the same thing could possibly be true of regular old folk, too.

Not a chance. There's always an external reason for a regular fellow's inconsistency...

Really, you think most amateurs claim consistency? Most of the ones I know cheerfully acknowledge that they can be inconsistent (some of us explicitly point it out with every tasting note). Personally, I don't have any problem posting a TN that contradicts an earlier one I had made, and often see others reconsidering wines. Most of us just record our impressions, and let the reader decide what to think.

Ruth, agreed, I have good friends that the fact that they love a wine makes me disinclined to buy it. No knock on their tasting ability, but our tastes don't match.

Actually, the only people I know who claim to be truly consistent are certain pros, who always decline to taste blind publicly.

I guess you're lucky not to know a couple of the arrogant (and silly) amateurs I have known.

I found the study quite interesting. This fella Hodgson toiled at Humboldt State (alongside one of my oldest friends) until he retired and decided to really get into wine. In his previous life he was an oceanographer.

Actually, the only people I know who claim to be truly consistent are certain pros, who always decline to taste blind publicly.

Dale,

You likely haven't run blind tastings for non pros as many times as I have.

That stuff about the judges is nothing new. Any good blind judging should "test" tasters with a few duplicates, not to trip them up, but to establish their level of consistency. It's a rare bird who is right on all the time.

Actually, the only people I know who claim to be truly consistent are certain pros, who always decline to taste blind publicly.

Not sure (and not asking) to which pros you refer but I will say that the small circle of people whom I can proudly call "colleagues" won't hesitate to taste blind, even before an audience, so long as the conditions are right. One of the great pleasures of being "a pro"is the occasion to laugh at oneself for one's bad guesses.

On the other hand, the critic who agrees to a blind tasting in a television studio is a fool - the hot lights, aromas of perspiration, and pressure to perform "on camera" being too much for anyone to concentrate or focus as should be the case.

As to how blind tastings should be conducted, either in public or in one's own tasting room - one of the critical elements is that of "doubling up" wines, that is to say, of having the same wine served to you in two different flights, with two different numbered glasses and then, once the bottles have been unveiled, to see how close your tasting notes are from the two tastings. If not close enough (with re points let's say 1.5-2 points variation maximum), the notes from the entire tasting should be discarded as that reveals that either your palate or your concentration was not finely tuned enough at that particular tasting.

Best
Rogov

On the other hand, the critic who agrees to a blind tasting in a television studio is a fool - the hot lights, aromas of perspiration, and pressure to perform "on camera" being too much for anyone to concentrate or focus as should be the case.

Wasn't there stories about some major US wine critic doing precisely that, correctly identifying almost all the wines with which they were presented on a French television show (and a surprise, on-the-spot nonetheless). Seems like such a story has been floating around in cyberspace . . .

On the other hand, the critic who agrees to a blind tasting in a television studio is a fool - the hot lights, aromas of perspiration, and pressure to perform "on camera" being too much for anyone to concentrate or focus as should be the case.

Wasn't there stories about some major US wine critic doing precisely that, correctly identifying almost all the wines with which they were presented on a French television show (and a surprise, on-the-spot nonetheless). Seems like such a story has been floating around in cyberspace . . .

Well, there's A story, from a posting by the critic on Prodigy, where he did this amazing feat on French TV, and which was told on and off in cyberspace for years. Except......I couldn't find evidence of this "TV superstar" and wondered why the same post kept surfacing, but no other witnesses. So some questions were asked. Turns out that the show was never aired, the critic has a copy of the tape but doesn't know where, etc. So the "evidence" of this feat of blind tasting consists of one 13-year old post.

CC and Thomas:

Sure I know some arrogant #$%^ole amateurs who make amazing claims and excuses, just as I know some arrogant #$%^ole professionals. But most of the amateurs (in the original sense) as well as most of the pros are aware of their possible inconsistency, and take it in good humor.
My "serious" blind tasting group is about half pro and half amateur, luckily everyone has good humor.

CC and Thomas:

Sure I know some arrogant #$%^ole amateurs who make amazing claims and excuses, just as I know some arrogant #$%^ole professionals. But most of the amateurs (in the original sense) as well as most of the pros are aware of their possible inconsistency, and take it in good humor.
My "serious" blind tasting group is about half pro and half amateur, luckily everyone has good humor.

Dale,

It isn't amateurs that have disappointed me in their attitude concerning the results of truly blind tastings--it's the so-called geeks, the ones who claim to be a notch above the everyday amateur (and some pros, too).

In my view, testing consistency is educational. Sadly, too many people can't get past their egos to accept such experiences as educational; instead, they approach it as a test of their mettle.

I don't hold reverence for much that passes for professional wine criticism, so that is not the benchmark that I use to evaluate the effectiveness of truly blind tastings, where tasters know nothing, or very little specific about what's in front of them.

[David M. Bueker]

Still bitter Thomas?

David,

The operative word in my post is "disappointed."

A friend's recommendation has always - always - been more valuable than any score, be it from Parker or any other source.

Particularly if that friend shares similar tastes. Conversely if my Mom loves the wine, probably I will give it a pass.

Now that's interesting - I hadn't thought about family in the same way I think about friends.

Would it be so wrong for a consumer who follows and keeps tags on these “New World” wine competitions year in and year out, to view “New World” competitions in the same light as “Old World” appellation systems? Take both with a “grain of salt”. Basically they are doing the same thing. Appellation systems seek to protect the “value” of regional wines; competitions seek to determine the “value” of a wine in a given category or class of wine.

Salute

As to how blind tastings should be conducted, either in public or in one's own tasting room - one of the critical elements is that of "doubling up" wines, that is to say, of having the same wine served to you in two different flights, with two different numbered glasses and then, once the bottles have been unveiled, to see how close your tasting notes are from the two tastings. If not close enough (with re points let's say 1.5-2 points variation maximum), the notes from the entire tasting should be discarded as that reveals that either your palate or your concentration was not finely tuned enough at that particular tasting.

Is that typically done? It seems that the variation at the California State Fair Wine Competition was a lot larger than that.

Having rules about consistency seems like a good idea, but simply insisting on consistency is clearly not sufficient. To take an extreme example, I could be 100% consistent by giving every wine the same score. So , you also need to incentivise judges to discriminate well between good and bad wines. When I used to look at panel scores in Decanter, I was alway surprised by how little spread there was in the scores - it seemed likethe evaluators were afraid to stick their necks out to say a wine was good or bad.

Steve, Hi....

I was not relating to panels of judges but to individual critics and then again to those individual critics from whom I have respect.

When it comes to the out and out value of competitions, I am strongly opposed to their value or validty. With one or two exceptions (the IWSC is one that jumps to mind), the vast number of these competitions are worthless except that those little medallions do help sell wine to an unsuspecting audience.

To understand a bit more about my condemnation of the majority of competitions, see my little article at http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/intern ... _comp.html

To add a bit to that, in the time intervening since I wrote that piece, prizes have been upgraded. What was once gold is now "double-gold", what was formerly silver is now gold, and what was bronze is now silver. I eagerly await the first platinum, double platinu and U238 medals.

Best
Rogov

Ah, yes. Sorry Rogov. Didn't read your point carefully enough.

For those interested here’s a link to the California State Fair Commercial Wine Competition handbook for 2008;

http://www.thebestcaliforniawine.com/2008/WineBook.pdf

Not all competitions are set up the same way, some are international others are regional; they may have different entry requirements (this will actually widen or narrow down the actual “playing field”), slightly different judging guide lines etc.

Salute