WSJ on Wine Advocate and the travel/ethics issue

Posted by Dale
"The other issue isn't ethical, but practical. I think anyone who claims to be able to effectively taste and judge 200+ wines in a day is ignorant of physiology and psychology."

Just so I understand where your logic comes from, how often have you tasted 200+ wines in a day?

So, how far do I need to run before I can reasonably claim that a marathon is a grueling event?

Mark Lipton

Dale, Hi.....

On all of the points you raise with regard to ethics we are in full agreement, but some at least seem to think that the free lunch or the cup of coffee can indeed "buy" the critic, and that every variation from the norm has to be spelled out in detail. It is with those thoughts that I take issue.

We are not in full agreement, however, on the number of wines one can taste. My own limit, and that only rarely, is 150-160 wines in a day and that comes after many years (more than I will admit to) of being in this critical endeavor. And when I do that I am always certain to have assistants working with me*, and to double up at least eight wines to check the accuracy and consistency of my palate over time. Such extreme tastings do take near ideal conditions but those can be attained at times. As to the limit of 200, I know damned well that I cannot make it. Perhaps some can though.

As to the relation between physicology and psychology during such massive tastings, much depends on the individual and his/her experiences, in some cases the various hormones emitted because of the positive challenge working to overcome the physical and palate fatigue.

Indeed as well, such tastings must be well planned in advance. While I might comfortably set of my day of such tastings with light whites or roses, those to be followed by say medium-bodied reds and then finally by heavier, more tannic wines, I would never dream of following the opposite order. Nor, by the way will I ever set out to taste more than 40 methode champenoise or charmat wines at the same tasting. Well....and then again, never more than 20 Amarone wines at the same shot. As I have stated on many occasions, he who runs away today lives to taste another day.

Best
Rogov

*The assistants not in tasting but in numbering glasses, pouring, supplying fresh glasses, clearing glasses when a flight is finished, and if the truth be told, sort of guarding me from external influences (noise, odors, or people who in any way make nuisances of themselves)

1. There should be no problem with wines "tasted twice with consistent notes". That can happen

(a) when you have tasted several flights of wine blind, the wine in question being in two separate glasses with two separate numbers as a test to your own palate;

(b) when after having been revealed it seems that indeed the wine either under- or over-achieved dramatically. One then obtains another bottle, again to be tasted blind, to see if the original evaluation holds or not.

(c) when attending two separate tastings in which the same wine (albeit from a different bottle) appears

(d) when a wine so over or under performs that one suspects that the cause was bottle variation or that a producer might have sent a "ringer"

As I started that line of thought on tasted twice, I don't believe I was stating that it was a problem. I was using that as an example of what I feel is an acknowledged bias for notes reported in the Wine Spectator only. As you note in your b above a wine that appears to have either under- or over-achieved would be considered to be tasted again. But to believe that a wine either under or over-achieved is to acknowledge a belief of how the wine should perform and that is what I would consider a bias.

As I started that line of thought on tasted twice, I don't believe I was stating that it was a problem. I was using that as an example of what I feel is an acknowledged bias for notes reported in the Wine Spectator only. As you note in your b above a wine that appears to have either under- or over-achieved would be considered to be tasted again. But to believe that a wine either under or over-achieved is to acknowledge a belief of how the wine should perform and that is what I would consider a bias.

Brian, Hi....


I'm not sure whether we're talking about a bias based on a stereotype (negative) but on a potential bias built on experience. Two cases.....let's assume you've been sent a bottle of Chateau Drekh, a producer that consistently in the past has produced wines scoring anywhere from 70=75 and you have awarded this particular wine 92 points. After the wine is unveiled you might just wonder a bit and want to check further. Is that bias or is that striving for fuller understanding? Let's then say that the second blind tasting produces a similar score (low 90's). That being the case the critic has most definitely learned something quite valuable aout Chateau Drekh and that year's wine.

On the other hand let's say you receive a bottle of Gundferloch's 2004 Nackenheim Rothenberg Beerenauslese, awarded it a score of 78. Knowing the history of this wine for the last 30 years you might be curious to see just what went wrong or if what went wrong was your palate.

By the way, on occasions when double or triple tasted I have more than a few times noted: "So different between tastings that it is difficult to recommend the wine as there seem to have been multiple blends and/or bottlings"

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

As I started that line of thought on tasted twice, I don't believe I was stating that it was a problem. I was using that as an example of what I feel is an acknowledged bias for notes reported in the Wine Spectator only. As you note in your b above a wine that appears to have either under- or over-achieved would be considered to be tasted again. But to believe that a wine either under or over-achieved is to acknowledge a belief of how the wine should perform and that is what I would consider a bias.

The problem is that you brought it up in a discussion that hinges on bias being a bad thing, so no matter how you meant it there will be a problem in understanding. The context of the discussion is all wrong to accept your point.

I see what you are saying, and in this case I actually consider that perceived bias to be a good one, and thus don't see that it is worth referring to it as a bias (and burdening the discussion with such a loaded word). Let's re-taste a wine that did not perform as we expected it to. Let's make sure that when we say this important/expensive/notweorthy wine is not good that we have a chance of actually being correct, and not just victims of a bad cork, bad bottle, etc.

post by Mark Lipton
"So, how far do I need to run before I can reasonably claim that a marathon is a grueling event?"

Not the same thing. But I'll "run" with it. Suggesting a runner is in good shape, is ready physically for the run, the only other consideration is his/her mental ability to finish such a race well.

Relating this to your example, suggest here the taster is able to taste, is able to lift a glass to his face several hundred times, and all that's left is to stay mentally focused. I'm in no way saying it's not tough, but it happens. Are they ignorant? I don't think so.

Posted by Dale
"The other issue isn't ethical, but practical. I think anyone who claims to be able to effectively taste and judge 200+ wines in a day is ignorant of physiology and psychology."

Just so I understand where your logic comes from, how often have you tasted 200+ wines in a day?

Never. I have tasted 50-75 wines at a session at trade tastings and the like a few times, but I really had no confidence in my results for the last 20-30, even with careful spitting and lots of water. Of course, I freely admit that I don't think I am a "gifted" taster, and others with better innate skills might discern more. Still, even with spitting and rinsing the last wine you tasted can make a difference (or your platter of smoked fish). I've never heard anyone who is familiar with the physiology of olfaction/taste who felt that palate (or olfactory) fatigue doesn't exist. Steinberger had a good article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2168762/pagenum/all

referring to Dr Charles Wysocki:

He said it's impossible to taste dozens of wines in rapid succession and not suffer olfactory fatigue and that anyone who claims otherwise is claiming to "defy biology," as he put it. Although a critic might think that his sense of smell is still acute after sampling 40 Cabernets, his impressions at that point are being formed less by the nose than by past experience, visual cues (such as the color of the wines), and perhaps also tactile sensations.

I underlined the point that people don't realize that their senses are being overwhelmed.

Certainly it is possible to taste 200 wines a day, it's clearly done. But if one expects me to ignore the experts on olfaction and say they effectively taste, I'd like to see some evidence. If one tastes from 9 AM till 9 PM, with two hours for meals and one hour for bathroom breaks (with water for rinsing one would assume that a lot of breaks are needed), that leaves less than 3 minutes per wine to smell, taste, spit, and rinse- and that of course is assuming you have absolutely zero conversation, and write as you are tasting. It seems highly improbable to me, but I'm willing to be persuaded. This is a situation where a blind tasting would indeed be useful, to see if someone who claims to be internally consistent in recreating those scores.

post by Mark Lipton
"So, how far do I need to run before I can reasonably claim that a marathon is a grueling event?"

Not the same thing. But I'll "run" with it. Suggesting a runner is in good shape, is ready physically for the run, the only other consideration is his/her mental ability to finish such a race well.

Are you sure? Don't the temperature at race day, the terrain of the course and possibly other extraneous factors also enter into it? That may seem gratuitous to our discussion, but do read on:

Relating this to your example, suggest here the taster is able to taste, is able to lift a glass to his face several hundred times, and all that's left is to stay mentally focused. I'm in no way saying it's not tough, but it happens. Are they ignorant? I don't think so.

So here is my real point: Dale may not have tasted 200+ wines in a day, but he -- like most of us -- is personally familiar with the phenomenon of palate fatigue, both in himself and others. What he engaged in is extrapolation from known data, a tried and true approach to the understanding of phenomena outside our range of experience. He now has also provided citations backing up his claims, which I hope you'll agree does bolster his argument a bit.

In your analysis, you totally ignore a critical component of tasting, your sensory apparatus. There is a well-known physiological phenomenon known as habituation that is observed when any of your sensory organs is repeatedly exposed to a stimulus. (It has to do with the down-regulation of G-protein coupled receptors in neurons, but that's probably TMI ) A classic example of olfactory habituation occurs when we're exposed to the rotten egg smell of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is every bit as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. Fortunately for us, its smell is so pungent that we detect it at levels well below the toxic threshold (impressive, given how toxic it is) but we lose our sensitivity to it after being exposed to it for a while, so people do die of H2S exposure when the amount of it in the air is gradually increased to eventually reach a toxic level.

In the case of wine, even if we spit our olfactory nerves are getting repeatedly hit with smells and that will lead to desensitization over time. Alcohol also works its particular form of magic, even when we spit. So the only real question is at what point our tasting is significantly compromised. Is it 20, 50, 100, or more wines? That question I leave to researchers who've actually studied it, but I have no problem whatsoever believing Dale's assertion.

Mark Lipton

Dale and Mark, (sorry to lump together but the posts were very similar)

Dale posted:
"I have tasted 50-75 wines at a session at trade tastings and the like a few times, but I really had no confidence in my results for the last 20-30, even with careful spitting and lots of water. Of course, I freely admit that I don't think I am a "gifted" taster, and others with better innate skills might discern more."

If you did this 2 or 3 times a week, I believe you would have more confidence in your tasting. But not only confidence, you would learn to recognize more of what you were tasting. However, (After reading many of your tasting notes) I think you underestimate your tasting ability. Wysocki refers to this: "He said there is no question that some noses are more naturally gifted than others. But he quickly reiterated that the nose is an educable instrument and that people can be trained to detect odors that previously eluded them."

Also posted by Dale but from the article
"referring to Dr Charles Wysocki:

He said it's impossible to taste dozens of wines in rapid succession and not suffer olfactory fatigue and that anyone who claims otherwise is claiming to "defy biology," as he put it. Although a critic might think that his sense of smell is still acute after sampling 40 Cabernets, his impressions at that point are being formed less by the nose than by past experience, visual cues (such as the color of the wines), and perhaps also tactile sensations."

This statement is an opinion. Educated opinion, but still not fact.

He also said "Wysocki emphasized that science is just beginning to understand the connection between the nose and taste."

And the 2 scientists didn't agree on a couple of things and they didn't know why. Thanks for sharing the article. It was a fun read. However, after reading all 3 parts, there just isn't enough study thus far. From what it sounds like, they don't even know exactly what to study. I would love to try some of the tests though.

Some other quotes from the article:
(This statement might even interest Thomas with his objective vs subjective)
"More importantly, Wysocki said, wine is so aromatically complex that it would be pretty much impossible to devise the kind of rigorous, reliable test required to do such screening."

And his closing:

"Having briefly immersed myself in the emerging science of flavor hedonics, I've come away completely fascinated by the topic—but not especially worried about the implications for my line of work. It is quite possible—in fact, it is more than likely—that there are physiological attributes that are conducive to appraising wines, but we have no idea what they are. We know that the nose is the main conduit through which information about a wine is passed to the brain. Thus, having a "good nose" is helpful. But what anatomical features make for a good nose? We haven't a clue. And as Wysocki pointed out to me, every normally functioning olfactory system has strengths and blind spots. When it comes to judging the bouquet of a Syrah, what are the most desirable strengths and the most debilitating blind spots? We don't have a clue, and because of the aromatic complexity of wine, we'll probably never know."

"Moreover, wine connoisseurship involves a lot more than just innate aptitude (if such a thing even exists). It is also a function of motivation, knowledge, experience, memory, and stamina. (You try tasting 60 wines before lunch.) Professionally critiquing a wine involves more than just being able to identify a few aromas. You need to know how the same wine has tasted in previous vintages, how it has tended to evolve, and how it compares to wines that are considered benchmarks in its category—and you need to be able to communicate that information in a way that is meaningful to others."

Some people are better at judging wines than others, but based on what I've learned, the reasons for this are more likely to be found in the brain than in either the nose or the mouth."

And Mark, I agree I oversimplified the marathon. I did the same with tasting. There are a load of variables that could be brought into the discussion, both marathon and tasting.

Mark

Mark,

Sorry, I seemed to have missed your last point. About repetitive tasting and smelling etc. How much time does one need to recalibrate their senses I believe is the real question. Besides the obvious cleaning out your mouth with water or something else, how about the nose. I'm not sure of the answer. The article and you suggest much more time than I believe (or so I'm reading into your post), but I can't really argue the point. I say it is seconds. Guessing though.

Mark

[David M. Bueker]

Just a personal data point - I have done over 200 wines in a day 6 times. I've done over 100 another 10-12 times. Things start to blur pretty quickly if you don't take short breaks and have some food & water to clear stuff out.

In the long run I think it's harder to do full justice to 20 wines (e.g. a competition) than it is to blow through 200 for quick impressions. At least it is for me.

Mark,

Sorry, I seemed to have missed your last point. About repetitive tasting and smelling etc. How much time does one need to recalibrate their senses I believe is the real question. Besides the obvious cleaning out your mouth with water or something else, how about the nose. I'm not sure of the answer. The article and you suggest much more time than I believe (or so I'm reading into your post), but I can't really argue the point. I say it is seconds. Guessing though.

In the case of hydrogen sulfide, it's a matter of hours before something close to full acuity is returned. Sulfur chemists* who I know claim it's like 4-6 hours, depending on the extent of exposure. Whether that's a fully generalizable number I can't say.

Mark Lipton

* A pitiable profession: because they lose their sensitivity to the foul smell of sulfur they can't tell whether they're leaving lab smelling like the victim of a skunk encounter until a loved one gets within sniffing distance.

Mark,

I'll have to stay away from hydrogen sulfide. Doesn't sound like a fun job. Wine critic or hydrogen sulfide scientist......... tough decision.......

David,

Why have you tasted more than 200 wines in 1 day? I have as well, but just a few times. Over 100, hundreds of times. But I'm not a critic, so I don't have to be so thorough. If I was a critic, I would cap tastings at around 75.

Mark

[David M. Bueker]

Mark,

Rare opportunities to taste large numbers of wines for my own purchasing decisions. It's worked out well for me. Only ever bought a couple of dogs based on the results.

Not to side-track the ethics issue, but I found the following statement (that Parker made in the referenced Standards link) rather amusing, given that Chenin Blanc is often exceptionally ageable (well, that and the fact that I consumed a 39 year old Ridge Jimsomare this past weekend).

"Wines that taste great young, such as Chenin Blanc, Dolcetto, Beaujolais, Côtes du Rhône, Merlot, and Zinfandel, are no less serious or compelling because they must be drunk within a few years rather than be cellared for a decade or more before consumption."

Jim, I have had 20 year old zinfandel that was very good, if not sublime. I have had chenin blanc that was 20-40 years that was even better than very good. I remember a 10 year old $6 Columbia Crest merlot that was nothing less than great. I would say that I agree with your assessment!

[David M. Bueker]

The vast majority of Zin does not do so well with a lot of age though.

The Chenin thing was a silly slip, though I bet RP is no fan of Vouvray.

Mark N,
I'm pretty sure I don't underestimate my tasting ability. I freely admit that I am not as innately talented a taster as many. After many years of tasting and note taking, I think I've raised my level to perhaps the equivalent of a moderately genetically talented tester with just a couple years experience. It's like I'm a natural 3 (on a scale of ten) who's worked his way up to a 5 or 6, but 7 is my realistic ceiling.

Mark N and David,
I'm not saying that an experienced taster can't get a sense of 200 wines in a day, but putting a score (and sometimes note) on that is the definitive statement of your publication? David, you're buying for your own cellar. Mark, are you a retailer or sommelier? So the two of you go to a tasting, taste 200 wines. You're looking for 10-20 that stick out as possible buys. So you taste 160 that you quickly decide to ignore, and give extra attention to 40. I think you'd agree that overall you probably wouldn't prefer to make major buying decisions (1 case of expensive wine if for personal, maybe 10 cases for a restaurant or 40 for a store) solely on that, but obviously better than not tasting at all. But the question is do you want to assign 200 scores on a 50 point (nominal 100 pt) scale and claim that's the best way to do it? That those scores and notes are the official decision of a publication on that wine? I think you can get an accurate picture of those that you choose to focus on, but not all of the others.

While I've enjoyed aged Zin (and some 10-15 year old CdR from the likes of Clape), the real howlers of that quote were Chenin Blanc and Merlot. Pomerol anyone?

Dale,

The answer to your question is somm. But I wasn't referring to tasting as a buyer. That is simple. Rarely in a trade tasting do or would I taste everything available, for a variety of reasons.

We were on the same page and talking about critics tasting and rating. I'm still saying it can accurately be done. Is it ideal to taste that many? I don't think so. But only because of mental fatigue. Certainly wouldn't want to do it everyday.

Maybe Mr. Rogov could chime in here but I believe most tastings are kept to under 100 and most probably under 75. When an organization such as 'Wines of Argentina' , or ZAP (Cal Zin Org), or any other large organization hold tastings, they have everyone that is a member send bottles to taste. That is why there are so many bottles.

Hear me out on this because I'm attempting not to dumb down the tasters ability.

As you can imagine, when a critic tastes wine, he'll spend a touch more time on a wine that is serious. For example, the critic would take some time on Lafite, while basically dismissing Beringer white Zin with a note that states "not recommended, or name of flaw, etc.. Well, when a large organization tasting comes along, you get a lot of so-so bottles and those are tasted with minimal notes. As a percentage, with a tasting like this, 10 to 15% (90+)are excellent, another 20 or so percent are recommended (84-89). The rest have minimal notes taken because of obvious flaws, not serious, or are simply not very good. At least this is how I would do it. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of really bad wine made and my numbers for recommended might be high.

If there was a tasting containing 200+ wines and all were the quality of some SQN, that tasting would take forever. I would also want to be invited. However, I still believe a professional taster could handle a tasting like this.

Good importers have a good amount of recommendable wines and those tastings would take longer. But even those would sit at about 100+- bottles.

mark

So I will ask this question again, as I did in the other post - only this time clearly.
If $25,000 was spent to bring the Jay Miller of RP fame to the country, paid for by the wineries, who were asked to pony up $ 500 a piece to underwrite the trip... Was it ONLY the wineries that paid the $ 500 that were included in the WA, did those wineries recieve preferred status at the tasting, were they noted during the tasting ?
If so, and again, very clear here - Is this not a pay to play and if so, what makes this alright in the world of wine rating with a publication that holds so much power over sales with wineries ?
Thanks
Linda

Linda, are you directing this to someone?

Mark,
This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a question I had last time while the earlier thread was bouncing all over the place, would be interesting to see if those wineries got better treatment or more press.
L

Linda,
What country are you talking about? And where do you get monetary figures? "Pay to play" - What good would that do anyone? You seem to have a personal beef with Jay Miller. If that's not the case, sorry, but your post seems angry.

mark

Mark
If you will refer to the opening of this thread there is an article linked that summarizes the issues at hand. The Australian wine board (or whatever the real name is) spent $ 25,000 to bring Jay Miller over to evaluate wines - the basis of this topic plus the one before it, and the other one on E-Bob that I can't find right now. After reading some others thoughts on this, I can't figure out how to spend that much on one person for that period of time, yet still be somewhat reasonable. This also has to do with him not tasting blind and tasting through various peoples books, as they have weeded out the rif-raf and offer only the good stuff for him to evaluate.. I would guess he misses alot this way !
If you think I am angry or have a bone to pick with Jay Miller you are incorrect. My thought and just mine, but mine is also one of being a winemaker, is that if you get paid to taste, treated above and beyond you can no longer be objective. (Let's not go into obejective/sunjective again please)
Linda

So I will ask this question again, as I did in the other post - only this time clearly.
If $25,000 was spent to bring the Jay Miller of RP fame to the country, paid for by the wineries, who were asked to pony up $ 500 a piece to underwrite the trip... Was it ONLY the wineries that paid the $ 500 that were included in the WA, did those wineries recieve preferred status at the tasting, were they noted during the tasting ?
If so, and again, very clear here - Is this not a pay to play and if so, what makes this alright in the world of wine rating with a publication that holds so much power over sales with wineries ?
Thanks
Linda

Hi Linda,
I think you will find many countries have marketing programmes - either run by a national or regional body - they will pay for the critic to attend (including airfares and accommodation) and as the critic only sees those wines that are entered by those wineries who 'pay' to be part of the marketing program, it is quite likely that these are the only wines you will read reviews of.
Is there a marketing body like this in Oregon that you belong to, or don't belong to?
I imagine a critic/journalist who is invited to IPNC (as an example) would only write reviews of those wines at that event - not on others unless he/she makes the effort to find them before or after, if time allotted allows. No-one can honestly rate and review wines they haven't tasted.
Cheers,
Sue