Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

[David M. Bueker]

Of course it's infanticide, but I have 6 375ml bottles, so opening one in the name of science is well worth it!

Of course it's infanticide, but I have 6 375ml bottles, so opening one in the name of science is well worth it!

375s are supposed to come around sooner, has anyone ever figured out how much sooner?
I do understand in the name of science, but we had an administration for so long that didn't put much stock in science so I had forgotten.

[David M. Bueker]

I don't believe it. There's she goes again. She's tidied up, and I can't find anything.

The en primeur barrel tastings in Bordeaux offer journalists 2 options: blind or not blind. It would be interesting to know how many prefer the former option. It would be even more interesting to know how many tweak their notes and comments afterward when they find out what the wines are, and find there is a big discrepancy between their place in the hierarchy and how they rated them...

Alex R.

A few years ago, some journalists, notably Michel Bettane made a big deal about tasting the wines blind en primeur. The Bordelais complied and there are indeed two groups, one who taste blind and one that tastes open. I am in the latter group.

Most of the top estates have chosen not to participate in the tasting. First growths, and for instance in St. Estephe, Montrose, Calon, Cos etc. There you taste and talk; they tell you why their wines are better than their neighbors, The tasting is carefully orchestrated, and you know exactly what you are tasting. So what is the point of tasting a small fraction of the wines blind and not others?

As for tweaking; I hope it doesn't happen. It may, but the people I know have too much integrity to mess around with their notes.

"Salil Benegal"

"In that case everything should be tasted in a vacuum, ideally with blindfolds on. Even tasting with other people will sway results a little bit based on how others react to certain wines. There's no way to taste wine in a completely objective manner, and to expect it to be done on a massive scale to cover thousands of wine for a publication is ridiculous (and completely unfeasible from a business standpoint).[/quote]"

Salil,
When I saw this post I just happened to be in my office with our team and relayed your post to them. They have offered you a personal invitation to come on out and see how we conduct a "blind" tasting. A tasting is not just a "tasting, it is YOUR and the other tasters evaluation of that particular wine at that particular time, knowing only the varietal and possibly the year". In our world, there is no discussion allowed until such time all wines have been evaluated and notes taken. Once this is complete we will have our discussion sharing notes and AFTER that point we will disclose the labels/lab trials . However, the tasting is indeed blind and OBJECTIVE.
As far as your comments above regarding the "ridiculous and unfeasibility" of blind tastings from a business standpoint, you Sir need to take your blinders off which I suspect you may do as you grow up and progress through this wonderful world of wine.
Cheers
Linda

Linda,

NO tasting is OBJECTIVE.

You may think it is, but you are mistaken. You are in a realm that cannot be measured or, rather, can only be measured in a most unscientific way.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex, Hi.....


I think however we are mixing a few metaphors here.....

Wine tasting, when done as part of the crtitical process, is a human function, as is all criticism. Because of the human element, no form of criticism is, nor should it be, fully objective. That is as true of the criticism of wine, the theater, the opera, various art forms and even social criticism. All criticism is impacted upon by the history (personal, sociological, ethnic, cultural, and psychological) of the individual critic and that is precisely what gives it value for criticism is not a statement of reality but rather an interpretation of the real. And that is precisely what gives criticism its value.

Indeed the critic should strive to be as objective as possible and there are tools for this including the conscious decision and full effort to separate the object (or, if one prefers, the act or product) being evaluated and criticized from outside influences. Criticism at its best should be a self-aware examination and later statement. Simply stated, laboratory examinations are analysis - they are not a form of criticism.

Best
Rogov

Once this is complete we will have our discussion sharing notes and AFTER that point we will disclose the labels/lab trials . However, the tasting is indeed blind and OBJECTIVE.

Not sure what you mean by 'OBJECTIVE'. Your tasting conditions will clearly influence how you perceive the wine. I.E. temperature, ambiance, mood, lack of food etc. That is either a good or a bad thing depending on how you want to use your notes. I.E. if the notes are to be used for evaluating future tastings under similar circumstances they will probably be very useful. If they are to be used for evaluating which wine to drink at a dinner party they will probably not be very useful. This point has been made before.

I should add that I don't necessarily think tasting wine at a dinner party is the 'best' way to evaluate wine. I often seek more control over the tasting environment in order to better evaluate a bottle. But, for me that means drinking one wine over several hours at home, before, during, and after dinner. But I wouldn't call any of it objective.

(quote) which I suspect you may do as you grow up and progress (unquote)
Folks
We really do need to avoid the little side-swipes that detract from what are otherwise reasoned arguments and only serve to drive the debate into the trenches (which is when it gets really dull). This isn't in the nature of this wine forum and I'd hate to see it descend into tit-for-tat swipes.

Linda,
Sorry for singling out your quote - there are perhaps comments of others that I could have used.

regards

Ian

(quote) which I suspect you may do as you grow up and progress (unquote)
Folks
We really do need to avoid the little side-swipes that detract from what are otherwise reasoned arguments and only serve to drive the debate into the trenches (which is when it gets really dull). This isn't in the nature of this wine forum and I'd hate to see it descend into tit-for-tat swipes.

Linda,
Sorry for singling out your quote - there are perhaps comments of others that I could have used.

regards

Ian

I agree, Ian.

In this case, this is among the oldest discussions on this bb. It seems that the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective' as well as the difference between hedonistic criticism/evaluation and technical evaluation in the business are also confused.

Too many consumers don't understand the training behind wine evaluation and so they simply refuse to accept that there are objective measures that can be and are studied and applied. And what people do not understand, they have a tendency to ridicule--such as the 'tasting in a vacuum' comment by Salil, who should know better as I saw him perform in a double-blind tasting.

C'mon Salil, you didn't learn anything from that Riesling experience?

[David M. Bueker]

Thomas - you bring up a good point regarding the Riesling Shootout that we did last year. While it was fun and somewhat informative, I think it could have been better had we been able to do a little more coordination. I think that stylistically we were a bit all over the map (mostly, but not totally due to regional variation), and it made the assessment process very tough (and ultimately undeservedly rough on some of the FL wines and one of the Germans).

Thomas - you bring up a good point regarding the Riesling Shootout that we did last year. While it was fun and somewhat informative, I think it could have been better had we been able to do a little more coordination. I think that stylistically we were a bit all over the map (mostly, but not totally due to regional variation), and it made the assessment process very tough (and ultimately undeservedly rough on some of the FL wines and one of the Germans).

Yes, the coordination wasn't ideal, as was the lack of certain producers who should have been included in the tasting.

But on the subject of objective vs subjective evaluation, good examples of the difference between the two showed up in the results. I learned a few things from the tasting, one of which being that, when released too young with their high phenolics not having time to settle in, Finger Lakes Rieslings may not be accepted by those used to drinking German Rieslings with a different phenolic profile and that are released after spending a little more time in the bottle.

It proves to me that FLakes Rieslings generally need more time in the bottle than they are allowed before release.

[David M. Bueker]

Thomas,

Doesn't the need for cash flow just suck.

I have to admit to growing just a bit weary of all the talk about "freebies" and when/if to accept those. Yesterday I accepted an invitation to dine at one of Israel's best restaurants in the company of several wine writers and critics and in the company of a dozen winemakers, at the restaurant to sample (re-taste in my case) a dozen local wines and to partake in a degustation meal. Indeed cause to examine the issues of extraneous influences on the critic.

Those interested can find my comments and observations at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=23974

May I request that comments, agreements and/or dissenting opinions in this specific case be posted on that thread to keep it intact.

A partial review of the meal in question can be found at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=23973

And if anyone wants to see just how "a la granda" the day was see also
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=23958

"as you grow up and progress through this wonderful world of wine."

Ian this was the quote in total that you chose to shorten and take out of context, and determine that side swiping was not a nice thing to do. Be assured this was not meant as any type of attack on Salil, simply a statement about learning as we experience.
In fact, if there was malice in my words, why would I kindly invite him to our blind tastings, I thought that was being mighty gracious.
Linda

[David M. Bueker]

Linda - I'm glad to hear it wasn't intended as a shot, but it really read like you were "schooling" him.

Too many consumers don't understand the training behind wine evaluation and so they simply refuse to accept that there are objective measures that can be and are studied and applied.

Acid and tannin may be objective measures but that doesn't necessarily mean the overall evaluation (or how well you 'liked' the wine) is objective. So yes, I trust the 'objective' description of those analytical factors, but not necessarily the more fun stuff. I.E. how the wine 'performed' - which as we know is no small matter.

Linda
My apologies if I read that wrong. To put the whole para there:
As far as your comments above regarding the "ridiculous and unfeasibility" of blind tastings from a business standpoint, you Sir need to take your blinders off which I suspect you may do as you grow up and progress through this wonderful world of wine.

In the context of "taking the blinders off", I saw the term "grow up" to be disparaging. The words "grow up and" being unnecessary, led one to wonder why they were there.

Like David, I am reassured it wasn't meant as we both read it.

regards

Ian

Too many consumers don't understand the training behind wine evaluation and so they simply refuse to accept that there are objective measures that can be and are studied and applied.

Acid and tannin may be objective measures but that doesn't necessarily mean the overall evaluation (or how well you 'liked' the wine) is objective. So yes, I trust the 'objective' description of those analytical factors, but not necessarily the more fun stuff. I.E. how the wine 'performed' - which as we know is no small matter.

Rahsaan,

I agree.

My overall point is that there is a way to evaluate the wine as a product intended to deliver a certain level of quality and there is a way to evaluate what we think of the wine as something intended to give us pleasure. The former is an exercise in objectivity (which is achieved by evaluating the measurables against pre-set parameters) the latter is an exercise in perception, which is of course subjectivity.

Quite often how a wine performs for a group of people isn't uniformly agreed upon mainly because it's not the performance but how we perceive the performance that matters. There's a lot of truth in the phrase, 'no accounting for taste.' Still, if a wine suffers from excessive v.a., and the excess is beyond accepted parameters, then the wine is faulty whether or not any one individual loves or hates it. That is an objective measure. Some people are trained to identify the fault even before subjecting the wine to a test--most people aren't trained to do that.

As for critics, I don't believe that most are objective mainly because they search for the aesthetics and not necessarily for the measurables. Some critics may even like measurably faulty wines, as do some of us consumers.

When Linda speaks of the blind tastings at her winery, she is talking about their attempt to objectify whether or not the wine lives up to intentions that the winery has for it, i.e., a certain level of faultless quality as well as a certain degree of varietal identity, with, I assume, added aesthetics to make the evaluation racy...

The hard part at wine competitions is for judges to put aside their subjectivity. I know Alex won't believe this, but many of us can--and do--objectively judge wines that we personally don't like or drink. In fact, it might even be easier to be objective in that situation as you are forced to focus on whether or not the wine met its parameters.

I remember the first time I was on a judging panel for our state fair. Back then I had only tasted a few sakes. I did not like any of them. I also said that I should abstain. We had several other people who enjoyed sakes and would judge more accurately. Since then I have been through a number of sake seminars and feel more comfortable with them. In the case of Pinot Noir I am not a fan of the very extracted and heavily oaked style but I feel that I can judge it. I certainly have numerous customers who like that style. When I am dealing with new customers I will ask for some specific wines that they like. That gives me a better idea what to recommend.

In the case of Pinot Noir I am not a fan of the very extracted and heavily oaked style but I feel that I can judge it. I certainly have numerous customers who like that style. When I am dealing with new customers I will ask for some specific wines that they like. That gives me a better idea what to recommend.

This makes sense when dealing with individual customers. But how does a judge or critic determine what score to give a wine that does not meet their personal preference? In this situation, one is giving advice to the general public, not an individual customer.

In the above example, if Michael is judging Pinots (not to pick on you, Michael, but this is a good example IMO) and some are very extracted and heavily oaked while others are more in a style that he likes, does he rate the extracted/oaked ones lower because of that? Does he make an adjustment for his palate preferences? If so, how much? This is where we reach the limits of objectivity, IMO. One may be objective about how much extraction or oak treatment is present, but judging whether that is a positive or negative attribute is subjective.

Even if Michael is part of a judging panel which has been given specific criteria by the organizers outlining which qualities to reward and which to penalize, isn't the process for determining the rules inherently subjective? Who is to say extraction and oak are deficits? Because "that's the way it was always done?" Because that's "the accepted standard?" Says who? I'm not sure there are accepted standards for Pinot Noir anymore. Not even in Burgundy, let alone in California or Oregon. At the very least, the standards are changing. Take a look at the winners of dog shows over the last 4 or 5 decades. You will see a significant change in the definition of what qualities are desirable. It may be based on consensus of the experts, but it changes over time. The same can be said for wine.

So while it may be possible to be pretty objective about how well a given wine adheres to a standard, determining what that standard should be is inherently subjective.

I think that is a pretty fair assessment. I know that the panels that I have been on have had a good mix of retail, restaurant, winemakers, and writers. For any given varietal category everyone usually has their favorite style that they look for. For me, I look for balance. If I am judging Pinot Noir, I want it to taste like Pinot and not Syrah or Cabernet. Now when I am buying wine to sell, I first look at how much I like the wine. For example, I have had some Pinots that I like as wine but did not think they tasted like Pinot. If they represent good value, then I am happy to sell them.

This makes sense when dealing with individual customers. But how does a judge or critic determine what score to give a wine that does not meet their personal preference? In this situation, one is giving advice to the general public, not an individual customer.

In the above example, if Michael is judging Pinots (not to pick on you, Michael, but this is a good example IMO) and some are very extracted and heavily oaked while others are more in a style that he likes, does he rate the extracted/oaked ones lower because of that? Does he make an adjustment for his palate preferences? If so, how much? This is where we reach the limits of objectivity, IMO. One may be objective about how much extraction or oak treatment is present, but judging whether that is a positive or negative attribute is subjective.

Even if Michael is part of a judging panel which has been given specific criteria by the organizers outlining which qualities to reward and which to penalize, isn't the process for determining the rules inherently subjective? Who is to say extraction and oak are deficits? Because "that's the way it was always done?" Because that's "the accepted standard?" Says who? I'm not sure there are accepted standards for Pinot Noir anymore. Not even in Burgundy, let alone in California or Oregon. At the very least, the standards are changing. Take a look at the winners of dog shows over the last 4 or 5 decades. You will see a significant change in the definition of what qualities are desirable. It may be based on consensus of the experts, but it changes over time. The same can be said for wine.

So while it may be possible to be pretty objective about how well a given wine adheres to a standard, determining what that standard should be is inherently subjective.

David,

From my experience, I don't know of any established standards for oak extraction in Pinot Noir or in any other wine.

I believe this area falls into the overall category of balance. When I judge wine, if wood--or anything done to the wine--intrudes heavily on what I expect of the wine's character and characteristics, that wine will likely not score well with me, not for a measurable technical reason, but because some element is dominating the wine and unbalancing it.