Tasting test

I wanted to respond to Dale's idea of a test to taste wines as if it were our jobs. Like a critic. Take notes, score, and move on. The original idea was to get through 200 wines in a day.

Dale,
I don't think a trade show would be the right place for this type of thing. The logistics are just to different. Too many people, etc. I agree that getting through 200 bottles would be time consuming, a bitch to set up. I'm wondering if we could prove what we wanted to prove with less wines. Maybe 100? Just throwing this out there.

Let's get some more ideas together, if anyone wants, and see what happens. I would have responded to the other thread, but I thought it better to let it die out.

Mark

The original idea was to get through 200 wines in a day.

And what was the goal?

Simply to see if it is possible. I say it is with respectable/professional results. Either result, should be fun.....

I think it would be pretty hard to get through 200 wines a day and write sensible (and publishable) tasting notes rather than just quick impressions. I've done 200 wines in a day - but it was in wine show conditions - and it was not 200 different wines as there were recalls of previously tasted wines - including any wine where at least one judge had give a gold medal score and then top (gold) rated wines tasted again for trophy judging. Notes were jottings only - I knew what variety I was tasting - and notes stressed good or bad points to support my score.

Cheers,
Sue

with respectable/professional results......

How do you determine whether or not the results are respectable and professional?

Also, I think there is a big difference between 100 and 200 wines. At least for me. I can do close to 100 wines over the course of an afternoon and still have some semblance of sanity. But only a bit. So I can't really fathom doubling that.

But, others are probably more skilled than I am.

Sue, "hard", but with mental stamina, it can be done.... Good question Rahsaan.... But it can't be explored without trying..... you game?

I start getting palate/brain fatigue after about 40 wines; less if they are big blockbusting reds. And my manuscript notes in trade tasting conditions are succinct shorthand at best and have to be transcribed when my memory is still fresh.

Although I am one of those that say that up to 175-200 wines is a possibility for tasting, I think there are several clear provisos that must be attached:

1. No-one who is even used to tasting even as many as 30-40 wines daily can immediately make the jump to 100 or 200 wines. The palate and the body as well as the psyche need a great deal of training before that quantum leap can be made

2. If one is going to taste and evaluate that number of wines it most assuredly can not be done at a walk-about tasting.
In fact, such extended tastings need near ideal tasting conditions and, not infrequently, an assistant or even two working with you.

3. Notes, regardless of whether at a tasting of 10 wines or 100, are often made using a shorthand and/or coding system with which the taster is almost reflexively familiar. Only later do those notes become transformed into a form that is anywhere near "publishable"

4. May I suggest a peek at a post I made just yesterday (and in another context) about types of tastings and their advantages/disadvantages. That can be found at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=24535

5. Keep in mind that the logistics of tasting that many wines can be extraordinarily complex, especially if one is tasting blind. A tasting of 100 wines requires a minimum of 50 glasses per taster; with 10 people at such a tasting at least three assistants are required to bag the bottles, to open them, to number the glasses, to deliver the glasses to tables; to do a bit of clean-up as required, etc....

Best
Rogov

Sue, "hard", but with mental stamina, it can be done.... Good question Rahsaan.... But it can't be explored without trying..... you game?

I'm based in DC until the end of July (although I'm out of the country in June) so if something comes up in this area during that time frame, do let me know!

But, is everyone supposed to bring 50 bottles

June is probably out for me, but I could probably do something after July 15th, as long as it was in NE corridor.

I still think a trade tasting would be easiest, 150+ wines already there. All it takes is a couple of volunteers to get some blind pours of wines that participants tasted.

But if that isn't what folks would like, we could probably get 10-12 people to bring 10 wines each. Of course that lets people have a little edge with their own wines, but only with 10%.

Rahsaan, I'd call ability to have fairly consistent impressions would be measure. In other thread my idea was " The answer to the question of course is an actual experiment. Someone who feels they are "accurate" on 200 wines and believes in point scores should do a simple public test: taste through 175 wines, then retaste blind 15 of those wines drawn randomly from the first 100, and compare scores and comments. Would be revealing one way or the other.

We could do that here. Of course, an even better test would to see if one tasted 150+ wines and then tasted 15 other wines that they had previously written notes on. That would be better than a game of "which of the last wines I tasted is this?" Even better if they are numerical scorers, but unless Rogov participated I don't think there is a record of scores of any of those here who think that more than 100 are doable (I could ask Gilman or Joe Cz, but neither advocates scoring that many in a day AFAIK). I don't think Miller would participate, I think his boss has always refused to taste blind publicly except for some early EWS seminars (and I believe he stopped that after going 3 for 14 single blind on '95 Bdx).

We should see what dates and locations might work

Free advice is always worth precisely what you pay for it, but free advice at any rate:

1. If the wines are too much of a potpourri, no-one will be able to keep their palate intact. Thus, be sure that the wines to be tasted fall at least more-or-less into one, two or three categories at most. That is to say, starting off with say Chardonnay or Sauvignon Blanc (oaked or unoaked), moving on to medium-bodied reds and only then onto full-bodied reds.

2. If tasting 100 wines be sure to have at least 4-5 "doubled-up", that is to say, the same wine in differently numbered glasses as that is a fine check on the concentration and palate abilities of the individual tasters.

No fear, I am full of good advice and good intentions. (Good advice may be fine but we all know to precisely where good intentions may take us).

Best
Rogov

I still think a trade tasting would be easiest, 150+ wines already there.

I couldn't imagine this working at a trade tasting - honestly, can you imagine a tradeperson not wanting to tell you how fabulous his wine is and how XYZ rated it gloriously such and such.
Besides you doing blind tastings to test your palates is not really the focus of a trade tasting. Trade tastings are to get wines in front of trade buyers - and critics who could potentially write great things about their wines.

Doing this properly is a logistically daunting concept. To say the least.

Best to just get yourself invited to a wine competition, where all these problems are dealt with already. Tell the organizer you're doing a study and you're going to write a brief on it afterwards. That way you can taste the wines, score or rate or whatever in a systematic way with all the safeguards and failsafes, and then carefully analyze the results.

Otherwise, faggedaboutit.

Let me try to explain this.
I expressed skepticism when discussing the Miller/junket stir about his ability to accurately assess 200+ wines a day (in a few articles he has been reported to do that several times, sometimes for multiple days - actually the 3 day figure for Chile was "over 550", so averages less than 200, but at other times he has said 200+ is no problem).
Mark said that an experienced taster can do that. I thought that based on comments from some olfactory scientists, I'd be skeptical without proof.

So my suggestion was NOT to taste 200 wines blind, but to have experienced tasters who think that palate fatigue doesn't affect them taste a few wines blind AFTER tasting 150+ wines (the wines to get one to what I think would be palate fatigue don't need to be blind). The latter bottles could either be blind samples from the trade event, purchased bottles that one knows would have been in tasting, or entirely separate bottles that taster had posted notes/scores on. The experiment isn't designed to test blind tasting, but whether palate fatigue affects consistency.

I do know the purpose of trade tastings, but have been to many, never by misrepresenting my status. Many (not all) trade groups/importers allow a few geeky amateurs. I don't pretend to be anyone other than who I am.

Daniel,
the critic who set off this discussion tastes by winery, a potpourri of grapes and styles.

[David M. Bueker]

I'll happily create a flight of 30 or so Rieslings.

...the critic who set off this discussion tastes by winery, a potpourri of grapes and styles.

Possible but depends on how the tasting is set up and, especially considering the potpourri aspect, more difficult at "large numbers". See for example my tasting notes from my own recent tastng at the Golan Height Winery at
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=24094

Indeed, after a tasting that "mixed" having gone on to another 50-60 wines would have been a bad joke on both myself and my readers.

Best
Rogov

I've tried getting through large numbers of wines in a couple of different settings. The most fun have been large offlines and tastings like the MacArthurs barrel tasting, but they didn't come close to the rigor of what a professional critic goes through. The most organized were tastings set up by a friend/distributor to evaluate wines he was representing & thinking about representing. 60-75 wines, no swallowing, just spitting, water & bread to cleanse the palate, just a few minutes per wine, quick notes for each required. It was HARD WORK. Not fun. Took all the joy out of it. And not just because the wines were not all killer. Palate fatigue set in at about 35-40 wines. Everything tasted the same. Maybe one can get better at that sort of thing with practice. Or maybe some are just born with an ability to handle large numbers of wines. I can accept that others are better at this than I am, but I would NOT want to make my living based on an ability to taste over 30 wines a day.

Dale,

I didn't quite understand your idea from the first post on the other thread. Your idea is actually very good. Taste a bunch of wines and then taste 15 or so to test the palate. I read your idea as just tasting everything at the show with note taking and all.

Either way would work for me. If we sit down to taste through 100 or so wines, I'll be more than happy to supply 3 or 4 cases. Mostly horizontals from a potpourri of areas.

Otherwise, we could really pick and choose when tasting the 15 or so wines after a trade tasting. Test(taste), then quaff...

Timing could be tricky. My schedule is usually the opposite of everyone else. The reason I haven't responded for the last couple of days is because of an extremely busy work schedule. So, we could work on that.

Daniel,

I would agree with tasting by producer for a couple of reasons. 1) It gives you an idea of what the winemaker is trying to do. Shows his perceived weaknesses as well as perceived strengths. Also shows a bit of terroir. 2) When going from white to rose to red, it's almost like recalibrating your palate every time. This isn't always the case, but usually is. Of course, if there are any stickies, they must go at the end. The rs will certainly kill the palate for a bit.

Mark

Mark,
sorry I wasn't clearer. Not interested in a tasting contest, just a test of whether people can remain consistent after that many wines. Ideally the "test wines" should be retasted immediately after the others, as it they were wines 180-195 or whatever.

Ideally the test wines would be randomly chosen from the other wines. I have a friend who is a VP at a large importer/distributor. I can ask her if they have a big portfolio tasting, and if she would be willing to let us do our little test (don't want to put her in awkward position). If she was willing, she could set aside extra pours of 12-15 things in the portfolio. Or maybe David could ask Terry Theise if he would allow that at his portfolio tasting. Lastly, I know you didn't care for Daniel Posner's posts, but he does a tasting (partially for charity) once or twice a year with 150+ wines, I'd be willing to buy a few tickets. I KNOW he'd be up for blinding us on some retastes. Or maybe you could notify us of events down your way. In any case, if around here, I'd happily work on accomodations for you. In any case, after the results we could do dinner, if we could face wine at that point. If NY area I know I could get some regular attendees at big tastings willing to do the test.

Dale, I'm on the same page. A test is what I would like to do. Let's keep each other posted on tastings in each others areas. If one comes up where we can pull this off, and the timing is right, we'll organize from that information. Looking forward to this.

Mark

Dale

Our event is spring only now. So next April/May. But as you have mentioned, this past year we had 144 wines, from all over the country. The event goes for 3 hours. I usually get through out 80 wines myself, but I am also mingling with clients. I do get a one hour head start as well. 200 wines during a day with good notes is impossible. When I have been in Bordeaux and Burgundy, I am sure I have tasted 200 wines in a day. At trade tastings, I have done 150 wines in NY. At Nicolas Potel, I think I tasted 60 wines in 90 minutes! But again, my notes were pretty nonexistent.

Jay Miller is in NY next week, at the Argentine Embassy, to taste new releases, not blind. I have heard he will be tasting 300 wines per day. I am not joking on this number. Puts 200 per day to shame.

I have no idea whatever of Jay Miller's plans or schedule but I will say this:

(a) I believe the minimum requirement for tasting a wine is 3 minutes, that allowing for the tasting and making initial tasting notes. Doing that on a large scale means that the table will be constantly set and cleaned by others, that the wines opened and poured for you and then shifted on the table to make room for other wines.

(b) Allowing 3 minutes per wine, tasting 200 wines means that one requires 10 hours of concentrated work. Assuming that one is human and occasionally needs to take a break (e.g. to use the toilet, to stretch the legs, for a snack) we are talking about 12-14 hours of intense work.

(c) Using the same rule of thumb tasting 300 wines would involve 15-18 hours.

As much as I believe a well practiced professional can manage the 200 wines occasionally, but not on a regular basis, I do not believe there is a man, woman, child, chicken or porpoise who can reliably taste 300 wines in a day.

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Of course the 300 number is heresay, but interesting for the purposes of debate.

My source on this matter is a good one. Nevertheless, we will not know until after the tasting for the day, on June 23rd, is complete.

Daniel R., thanks for the insight.

I recall previously talking about 200 wines and someone said that 2 minutes per wine was more than adequate. I agree, for an amateur, who is not tasting the wine for critical purposes, 2 minutes is enough, however for a professional critic, I do agree, it is inadequate.

I think Mark Noah may have seen how WA tastings are done at the Oregon Grille, if they were ever done where he works. So maybe he can offer some of his expertise on the subject.