Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

Thomas,



And what other than "the taster's sense of self" could possibly stand behind a taster? He speaks of his experience and frame of reference. Period. He can't speak for me, or you, or a Professor of Enology, or anyone else. Because, as we've already said, we are in the realm of the subjective .


All the best,
Alex

That's a perfect explanation for talking about what one tastes, likes and dislikes--marvelously subjective, as it should be. But it carries no responsibility for evaluating the wine--not what you like or dislike about the wine, but the wine itself.

If you are going to pass judgment on the wine, don't tell me what you think and feel, tell me what you know. If you know little or nothing, and refuse to concern yourself with what wine is as opposed to how it makes you feel, you'll have to give me a better reason to care about your opinion.

Yes, RP tells others that his opinions are only his opinions. That's fine as far as it goes, and as far as others understand and believe it. The trouble is: many people think those opinions are formed objectively, and as you so often point out, they are not, or as you like to say, they cannot be formed objectively. And if that is always the case with wine evaluation, then it leads me to ask the question: why should anyone care at all about RP's or your opinion? Why should anyone care what either of you like or dislike? Seems like an ego trip rather than a wine evaluation.

Thomas,

I too, have said of some wines (Condrieu and Gewürtztraminer are good examples): this a decent enough wine, but not my style at all.
Therefore it is possible, to a certain extent, to separate one's likes, dislikes, and evaluations.
But only to a relatively small extent IMHO.

Can you show me a taster who strongly dislikes a wine, but gives it a very good score, or loves it but gives it a poor score?
You see what I mean?

I am puzzled by your comment:

>>>If you are going to pass judgment on the wine, don't tell me what you think and feel, tell me what you know.

This approach seems to be the very antithesis of wine tasting: clinical, disembodied and ultimately useless.
What I know is what I feel, my impressions!
By definition, impressions are fleeting and subjective.
The wine experience cannot be conducted like a scientific experiment!

Perhaps I should back up at this point and ask you: how do YOU evaluate wines?
How do the best tasters you know taste and score wines?

You then go on to say:

>>>The trouble is: many people think those opinions are formed objectively, and as you so often point out, they are not, or as you like to say, they cannot be formed objectively. And if that is always the case with wine evaluation, then it leads me to ask the question: why should anyone care at all about RP's or your opinion? Why should anyone care what either of you like or dislike? seems like an ego trip rather than a wine evaluation.

Ah, we are not so far apart after all!
I agree that evaluation is subjective and that there is a lot of hype, ego, pretence, you name it
Yes, indeed.
Where we cannot agree is that I see this as inevitable, there existing no objective way to appraise wine beyond rudimentary criteria of little help to consumers.

All the best,
Alex

AlexR: A Robert Parker is a self-made man. He tastes all the time, has a good memory, and is very methodical. Do you think he, the world's foremost wine taster, would claim his notes were "objective"?

Thomas P: The trouble is: many people think those opinions are formed objectively, and as you so often point out, they are not, or as you like to say, they cannot be formed objectively.

Alex, Thomas is making a good point here. Though RMP is too clever to be entrapped by saying his evaluations are objective, his business empire appears to rest, in part, on a widespread misapprehension that RMPoints are repeatable, accurate, and precise. I distinctly remember how crestfallen one eBober was once the veil had been removed. It was nonobvious to many otherwise thoughtful and critical thinkers, and I include myself among those who had to scrutinize this for some time before I comprehended it better. Its an easy 'out' for some to suggest that many consumers DEMAND wine scores; true enough. But the history of humanity is strewn with examples of where an illusion of knowledge trumps reality.

I'm not so certain that within certain acceptable statistical limits that notes and scores are not replicable. Two issues -


1. Whether they are replicable for the same individual - and that is quite easy to put to statistical tests (doubling-up on tastings, repeated blind tastings over a short period of time and over a prolonged period of time,etc).

2. More difficult for groups but when one finds a group of like- and open-minded people that can also be tested although without the same level of statistical significance. The method - over time of meetings (generally a minimum of 3 - 4 years) tasting blind as individuals together, building a measurable scale of standards and then seeing how close each member of the group comes to meeting those standards/definitions. In such cases of course one is not striving for precise sameness of interpretation or wording but of at least a certain level of concordance between the tasters. Preciseness of interpretation would be out-and-out boring though - for it is precisely the differences that say the most important things about the tasters (for sure) and about the wines (to those who choose to follow any of the members of that group)

Wow....quite a mouthful.

Best
Rogov

I'm not so certain that within certain acceptable statistical limits that notes and scores are not replicable. Two issues -


1. Whether they are replicable for the same individual - and that is quite easy to put to statistical tests (doubling-up on tastings, repeated blind tastings over a short period of time and over a prolonged period of time,etc).

2. More difficult for groups but when one finds a group of like- and open-minded people that can also be tested although without the same level of statistical significance. The method - over time of meetings (generally a minimum of 3 - 4 years) tasting blind as individuals together, building a measurable scale of standards and then seeing how close each member of the group comes to meeting those standards/definitions. In such cases of course one is not striving for precise sameness of interpretation or wording but of at least a certain level of concordance between the tasters. Preciseness of interpretation would be out-and-out boring though - for it is precisely the differences that say the most important things about the tasters (for sure) and about the wines (to those who choose to follow any of the members of that group)

Wow....quite a mouthful.

Best
Rogov

Daniel,

You make two important points.

As to groups, in the Riesling tasting that Mitch referred in an earlier post, two wines were placed in two different positions in the series of wines. 85 to 90% of the tasters seemed confused by the duplicate wines. In all but one case, the tasters that preferred one wine the first time disliked it the second time, and the tasters that disliked one wine the first time, liked it the second time. This pattern held for each of the two wines.

The results likely had to do with two things: what came before and after each wine, plus the fact that no one knew that there were duplicates in the lineup. But even I who engineered the lineup of wines was astounded by the replication of that particular result, especially since the tasters that evening never before and never since tasted a double blind as a group.

Thomas
A nice illustration, that as much as we seek objectivity, it's impossible (and certainly not desirable) to replicate mood, previous/following wines, food tasted before, ambient temperature, amount of sunlight, mood of ones colleagues/family, and so on. If I want better consistency I'll send the wine to the lab for analysis (though quite what I'd make of the answer )

I do like the idea of critics aiming to reduce these variables as much as reasonably possible, but would not want to be the one to suggest that Rogov lives on a diet of plain white bread, lettuce and water! There are some obvious ways to remove bias, but also some variability that just isn't practical to avoid. From my stats background, you try to reduce 'other' variability (other that is, than that you are measuring/assessing) and especially to seek to avoid non-random variation. Reduce the non-random variation significantly and (effectively) random variation to a point, then the results become easier to analyse / draw conclusions from / reliable. This concept however is going too far IMO for wine critics (i.e. the concept and broad thought patterns are good, but no point in getting hung up on the detail)

I quite like the idea of critics always tasting from the same glass shape for consistency, but also that they may be open to tasting out of a glass type recommended by the winery (I've yet to encounter the perfect glass, but have been amazed at the significant differences in vaguely similar shaped glasses)... noting significant differences.

In the end though, if I buy a book by a critic, I'm buying into their writing, opinions, foibles, experience and don't expect them to be without bias, but do get turned off if the biases that remain are bigoted/poorly justified. Going beyond that, if their biases are potentially through business/social relationships, I'll both ignore the note, but also mark them down a notch or two on the credibility front.

regards

Ian

Definitely a “mouth-full” Daniel, but just to expand on this, besides taking statistical sensory evaluation data of a single critic or group of tasters, and discovering important information regarding the critic or group of tasters, to discover information on the wine itself, looking at both the sensory analysis and laboratory analysis data side by side, will definitely assist one in determining something about the wine.

Salute

Daniel,

You're apt to assume that I'm zeroing in on you, but in all honesty, Thomas P's post led me (as a systems analysis and data hound) to type into google: ""wine scores" AND context". Out pops an essay from you at the very top: http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/praise ... cores.html

Not too many years ago, I awarded a score of 93 to the wine of Chateau Mouton Rothschild. In the same column, I gave the same score to the Nouveau Beaujolais Village of Joseph Drouhin. Within hours after the column had appeared, I received a phone call from a reader wanting to know why in the world he should spend more than $90 to buy the Mouton when for a mere $6.00 he could buy the Drouhin wine. "After all", he pointed out, "you gave both wines the same score".

What my reader had failed to grasp was that scores are not absolute, all wines being rated within their category. That is to say, the score given to a light, youthful and hyper-fruity wine made from Gamay grapes cannot be compared to that given to a deep, full bodied wine made from grapes such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and/or Cabernet Franc, the peak of drinking for which may come only five, ten or even thirty years later on. Numerical comparison between the wines of the great Chateaux of Bordeaux and those meant to be consumed within weeks or months of the harvest is akin to comparing (by means of a single number), the current status of a 1998 Lamborghini to that of a 1965 Volkswagen Beetle.

Following that, and in the names of and intellectual honesty, let me get into the body of this little essay by paraphrasing Mr. Shakespeare in stating that I come more to praise scores rather than to bury them. I hasten to add that abusing scores is like abusing wine. As wine is a beverage to be enjoyed in moderation by civilized people in civilized company and often with good food, scores too must be used in moderation, must be taken in context and should never be taken in and of themselves as critiques or complete evaluations of wines.

In brief, I find three advantages to the awarding and then reading of numerical scores. First of all, if you trust the critics you are reading, the scores they award to wines can serve as initial guides or, if one prefers, hints about their overall impression of the wine in question. Second, and again on the condition that they come from a source one considers reliable, numerical scores also give an immediate basis for comparison - of that wine to others in its category and to the same wine of the same winery from earlier years. Finally, for the at least partly knowledgeable or more sophisticated reader, such scores give valuable hints as to whether the wine in question is available at a reasonable value for one's money.

In my own case, even though numerical scores are part of my evaluations, I do not consider them enough on their own, and thus base my critiques on a combination of tasting notes and descriptions. In and of themselves, scores are valueless, for they give so little information about the wine that only fools, yuppies, incurable snobs, and the nouveaux-riches would buy a wine on the basis of a score. In other words, scores that have meaning must be accompanied by an at-least somewhat detailed review of the wine in question, one that will give details as to body, color, bouquet, length, flavor, overall style and other of the factors we seek out in the wines we choose to drink. That is to say, although scores are valuable reference points, they are neither the be-all or the end-all of evaluation.

Even if there was a perfect system for rating wines (and I do not believe such a system exists), no two critics, no matter how professional or well intentioned they may be, can be expected to use precisely the same criteria for every facet of every wine they have to evaluate. My own scoring system, which is based on a maximum of 100 points, is fairly simple (and quite similar to that of both The Wine Spectator and American wine critic Robert Parker).

95 - 100 truly great wines
90 - 94 outstanding wines
86 - 89 very good to excellent wines
81 - 85 good to very good but short of excellent
70 - 79 average but faulted in some way
60 - 69 seriously faulted, not recommended under
60 undrinkable in my opinion

One Major Reservation

Although I value scores given by individual critics, I have a problem with scores derived by committees or tasting panels. It is true that everyone, including the most devoted professionals, have their own prejudices as to what they seek in different wines. The individual taster (assuming of course that all evaluative tastings are done blind, the taster knowing only the broad category of wines he or she is tasting) can, however, let his or her prejudices be known to readers in advance, and is then free to proceed on that basis. In group tastings, however, there is no way for readers to know or to compensate for the biases of those making up the panel. More seriously, in group tastings (especially in competitions), where the scores awarded are calculated as an average of the scores of the members of the panel, , there is a mathematical and psychological process at work (known to statisticians as "regression to the mean") in which outstanding wines tend to fall to the mid-range scores and the score of mediocre to good wines tends to become higher.

[David M. Bueker]

As to groups, in the Riesling tasting that Mitch referred in an earlier post, two wines were placed in two different positions in the series of wines. 85 to 90% of the tasters seemed confused by the duplicate wines. In all but one case, the tasters that preferred one wine the first time disliked it the second time, and the tasters that disliked one wine the first time, liked it the second time. This pattern held for each of the two wines.

The results likely had to do with two things: what came before and after each wine, plus the fact that no one knew that there were duplicates in the lineup. But even I who engineered the lineup of wines was astounded by the replication of that particular result, especially since the tasters that evening never before and never since tasted a double blind as a group.

Just a quick comment about the two wines. While my scores may not have been identical for each wine the two times it was served, I clearly liked (85-90) one both times and disliked the other (upper 60s to low 70s) both times. The one I liked (2006 Hermann Weimer Rieslng Dry) was a wonderful wine that I added to my cellar. It has since performed very well at table, so the event was no fluke.

Just a quick comment about the two wines. While my scores may not have been identical for each wine the two times it was served, I clearly liked (85-90) one both times and disliked the other (upper 60s to low 70s) both times. The one I liked (2006 Hermann Weimer Rieslng Dry) was a wonderful wine that I added to my cellar. It has since performed very well at table, so the event was no fluke.

Yes, David, you were the one (or maybe there were two) who scored each wine close to consistent. But your notes were more interesting than your scores.

For the Wiemer wine (which you scored 80 and then 85), you wrote that the first one was candied, sweet and unintegrated, but your note on the second one was that it had slight sweetness and was balanced.

For the other wine (which you scored 65 and then 74), you noted--twice--that it suffered from v.a. This wine had just come back from winning a gold medal at a competition in, I think, Australia. When I spoke with the winemaker a few days later, he said that the technical stats didn't support the v.a. proclamation. But he also said that quite often, early release of Finger Lakes Rieslings show the phenolics in the nose sometimes to disadvantage of the wine, and I believe that you reacted strongly to those strident phenolics.

In a situation like this, however, the notes proved more enlightening than the scores. As for the v.a., the technical disproved the perception.

David
Indeed tasting order (and reasonable scoring variation) could explain a few points difference without any reason to resort to self-doubt. On the flip side, it's a good demo of why we shouldn't get hung up on a 92 point wine (sic.) being clearly better than a 90 point wine - even if we ourselves scored the wines (very much more true if these scores were assigned by someone else).

Put in English, it seems you thought wine A was very good (both tastes) and wine B was pretty poor (both tastes). I guess that illustrates the argument of those that favour verbal scales or smaller scales (e.g. Broadbent '5 star'), which perhaps better reflect the taster's consistency or (and I wince as I write this) accuracy. Still, that is a debate I've no desire to restart here or anywhere else

regards

Ian

For the Wiemer wine (which you scored 80 and then 85), you wrote that the first one was candied, sweet and unintegrated, but your note on the second one was that it had slight sweetness and was balanced.

For the other wine (which you scored 65 and then 74), you noted--twice--that it suffered from v.a. This wine had just come back from winning a gold medal at a competition in, I think, Australia. When I spoke with the winemaker a few days later, he said that the technical stats didn't support the v.a. proclamation. But he also said that quite often, early release of Finger Lakes Rieslings show the phenolics in the nose sometimes to disadvantage of the wine, and I believe that you reacted strongly to those strident phenolics.

In a situation like this, however, the notes proved more enlightening than the scores. As for the v.a., the technical disproved the perception.

I hope David is ok with this disemination of his notes... I know of people who might feel quite uptight about such information potentially exposing perceived fallability. Not that I see any malice whatsoever in your writing this, but just recognising that some might feel uncomfortable.

regards

Ian

I hope David is ok with this disemination of his notes... I know of people who might feel quite uptight about such information potentially exposing perceived fallability. Not that I see any malice whatsoever in your writing this, but just recognising that some might feel uncomfortable.

regards

Ian

Ian,

I'm just pointing to more information concerning David's post about his scoring. I'm not trying to hurt feelings, and I did not post his exact writing--that would be a copyright infringement.

More important, David's written impressions of those two wines show how difficult it is to participate in double blind tastings, and, in the case of wine number 2, it also shows the thing about subjectivity and objectivity that we've been hashing out on this thread.

I don't know why you brought up the possibility of my post being construed as anything more than an extension of this discussion, but if you are uncomfortable with it David, be assured my intention is to enlighten on the subject at hand, nothing more.

Thomas
As I said - which you've ably clarified - I definitely didn't read any malice in your posting of this (your interest came across as scientist/enthusiast).

More it's from instances of blind tastings where people feel they might not look good with a wrong answer - doubly dangerous with something like this where ones ability to taste consistently might be being challenged (again clearly not your intent to challenge David's palate consistency, but palate consistency in general).

In such instances, it's probably worth checking that the other person is ok with this, out of courtesy if nothing else. I've seen less experienced tasters feel humiliated when they've got something 'wrong' at a tasting.

regards

Ian

Thomas
As I said - which you've ably clarified - I definitely didn't read any malice in your posting of this (your interest came across as scientist/enthusiast).

More it's from instances of blind tastings where people feel they might not look good with a wrong answer - doubly dangerous with something like this where ones ability to taste consistently might be being challenged (again clearly not your intent to challenge David's palate consistency, but palate consistency in general).

In such instances, it's probably worth checking that the other person is ok with this, out of courtesy if nothing else. I've seen less experienced tasters feel humiliated when they've got something 'wrong' at a tasting.

regards

Ian

Ian,

I understand your motivation. I have this problem: I never view learning as a threat to my ego and I assume others feel the same way. It does get me into trouble at times.

I mentioned no names connected to specific results of that double blind tasting until David mentioned his own, so I assume that he's ok with the learning experience of it all. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he will let me know in no uncertain terms--one thing is sure: he ain't no dwindling flower

one thing is sure, he ain't no dwindling flower

(we're laughing with you, not at you David )

[David M. Bueker]

Thomas,

Except that you got my results wrong. The 80 and "candied" was for the Messmer liter bottling. The first tasting of the Weimer I gave a 90. Try again big guy.

I know you are upset at how the Finger Lakes/Germany event panned out (and that I posted notes before you had a chance to obscure the reuslts with heavily edited scoring), but it is what it is.

Thomas,

Except that you got my results wrong. The 80 and "candied" was for the Messmer liter bottling. The first tasting of the Weimer I gave a 90. Try again big guy.

I know you are upset at how the Finger Lakes/Germany event panned out (and that I posted notes before you had a chance to obscure the reuslts with heavily edited scoring), but it is what it is.

Oops, you are right, I read the wrong one when looking at the sheet. You gave the first Wiemer a 91 and the second time an 85. So, you were more consistent on that wine, even with your notes.

In any case, since you obviously think I cheated, and since you also think I have an axe to grind, which I do not, I'll drop the matter right here, and I'll assume that you forgot your little winky guy when you made this offensive remark: "...before you had a chance to obscure the reuslts with heavily edited scoring...".

Do me a favor, David, forget that I exist. I don't need to deal with such massive insecurity and I certainly don't like your accusations. Maybe you can delete this post without my knowledge, too, the way you've handled a separate post elsewhere--and you accuse others. Disgraceful.

Robin, you need to get a handle on David.

I'm through with this site now.

Thomas,

I can't see David being offensive in this. He's just pointing out you misrepresented his results. And looking at others scores, it seems that both Birman and Joe Cz detected VA in the Prejean, and Salil "something odd." Those were the only 4 whose notes I saw. Despite assurances re lab tests, seems SOMETHING was up there. As to editing scores, you did say "I was forced to disregard two of the tasters, as their evaluations simply proved they were out of their element." Most of us prefer to look at the data and see what needs to be disregarded, before the "analysis" is presented. Since Zuccarino told Ken that some wines came from 2 different bottles, one can't rule out variation of course.

Back to the earlier discussion. Rogov, "replicable for the same individual - and that is quite easy to put to statistical tests (doubling-up on tastings, repeated blind tastings over a short period of time and over a prolonged period of time,etc)." . True, but most (all?) of the tasters who claim great consistency refuse to do blind tastings with others in control. If indeed they are always within a point or two, one would think they would welcome the opportunity to exhibit their prowess, it might gain them some subscribers.

It would be interesting to see how much better the trained professionals are at analysis than the more subjectively oriented. I propose we put together a tasting.with say 12-14 tasters. Thomas can choose 3-5 trained winemakers or others with objective analysis training (plus himself of course). We can fill in the rest with just regular geeks who write notes (thought I'll see if I can round up some pro tasters/critics who aren't analytically trained, would make an interesting third angle). Get an impartial party to act as judge/chooser. Pick 15-20 wines where they are at least 75% one variety, and where tech sheets are available. Taste double blind, with the most points for variety, then some for country/region, and then estimates of high/med/low acidity, and maybe low/med/high ABV, and maybe whether there is RS over a certain point. We could agree on criteria for each category. I'm sure the trained people would do better, but would like to see the differences. If we could do it in a warm month in metro area I'd host dinner afterwards (our dining room is small, backyard is better). I'm always game for blind tasting, though others are much better than I.

Thomas,

I can't see David being offensive in this.....

Thomas,

.....
I know you are upset at how the Finger Lakes/Germany event panned out (and that I posted notes before you had a chance to obscure the reuslts with heavily edited scoring), but it is what it is.

Uh, Dale, I know from your many WTN that you are a self-proclaimed easy grader. Are you also extremely thick-skinned? David's comment wasn't directed at me, but I know I would be beyond offended if accused of rigging the results.

So I said I was done with this post, guess I wasn't quite done.
David B. - you had accused me on this thread of "schooling" Salil and a couple of other stupid comments. At the beginning of the thread, your high and mighty self thought it was not appropriate to have this conversation here, seems others have an interest looking at the over 200 posts ! Yet, NOW, you fired another one of your mis-directed daggers at Thomas and seemingly ran him off the site. I suppose you see this as a victory, I see it as a shame as Thomas was quite a knowledgable and interesting participant. I for one am about sick of your crap, your "better" than the rest of us attitude and your small minded attempts to control a public forum, where we ALL have opinions (Objective and Subjective). This might be just be THE reason this site doesn't have alot of winemakers, industry professionals that take thier time to both listen and participate. You are more irritating than thought provoking - Shame on you ! I suggest you find whomever is pissing in your wheaties daily and ask them to please stop, as it is apparently impacting you and this site in a very negative way.
Oh yeah, and Salil, the offer to have you out to our winery to see how we conduct blind tastings, consider that invitation rescinded. I am sure your pal David B can teach you far more than a lowly winemaker.
Robin, Its time for you to step in here, get a bit of control over the meaness that has no place here. I have watched and participated around here for sometime, but I must say, until recently I never saw such kindergarten behavior, and from a moderator as well. It's beginning to feel like Squires has a twin and his twins name is David B.
Don't know if I'll be back until this situation is resolved... too bad, as I have enjoyed it here and met some wonderful folks
Linda

Wine ITSELF is nothing more than a collection of chemicals. According to how I see the world, the objective analysis of the wine would largely be a chemical analysis. But the wine ITSELF has no objective aesthetic quaility that is sitting out there waiting to be determined by a human being.

Even at the most basic level, different humans taste and smell differently - their sensitivity to different tastes and aromas can differ hugely. That is undeniable, and for that reason alone it is clear to me that evaluation of a wine's quality is necessarily subjective. Each person will actually perceive different things. It is nothing to do with attitude of mind or expertise - the subjectivity is built into our noses and tongues.

Layered on top of the basic differences in human perception are a whole raft of cultural differences, fashion, education, prejudices, expectations - and differences that will be due to mood, the environment etc. We can perhaps try to mitigate against these factors, but IMO they are a lot stronger than most people expect.

Education: "The Wine Trials" showed that people with some wine education tended to give more expensive wines higher scores, but for people without that education the oppposite was true. So where is the objective quality there? Are we to totally dismiss the opinion of the vast majority of the population?

Expectation/prejudice: Remember the recently reported experiments where subjects found wine to be a lot better if told it was expensive? In itself it was perhaps a crude experiment from a wine tasting point of view, but for me it illustrated how strongly suggestable we are.

Culture/fashion: German wines used to be as highly regarded (and priced) as Bordeaux. But Bordeaux is continuing to gain favour, even in the new Eastern markets where one might expect German wines to be better matches for the cuisine. The are many other examples in history where wines wax and wane in popularity. We evaluate wines in the context of our current snapshot of time.

OK, with care we can mitigate against some of these latter factors (those not to do with perceptual differences) when evaluating a wine. But I believe it is difficult - very difficult. And I would also question how useful an excercise it is. Wines are meant to be enjoyed by people that are part of a real culture and they drink the wines in a real everyday environment. Any attempt to evaluate a wine in an artificially sterile situatation is not going to be that useful to consumers.

In summary I'd say evaluation of wine is TOTALLY subjective. But let's not worry too much about it. It shouldn't stop us talking about it and enjoying it.

Education: "The Wine Trials" showed that people with some wine education tended to give more expensive wines higher scores, but for people without that education the oppposite was true. So where is the objective quality there? Are we to totally dismiss the opinion of the vast majority of the population?

Absolutely not. I have opened several restaurants and I always considered the selection of a "house wine" an important decision. I would pre-select a group of wines that seemed likely candidates to me. Then we would do a blind tasting. The "panel" would be made up of several wine biz professionals (retailers, wholesalers) and a few folks I just happened to know who knew virtually nothing about wine tasting. Invariably a couple of winners would emerge with all members pretty much agreeing on them.

This sandbox squabble has become ugly. I won't add my subjectivity to that of everyone else but, though I was quick to welcome Linda's original post, I want to express my support for David in the subsequent exchanges.