Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
Daniel Rogov
Resident Curmudgeon
0
Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:10 am
Tel Aviv, Israel
Daniel Rogov
Resident Curmudgeon
0
Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:10 am
Tel Aviv, Israel
Victorwine wrote:Hi Daniel,
I hear what your saying and I agree with most of it. The only difference is the “wine critic” sitting in isolation in his/her own tasting room could use his/her own “standard, criteria, or philosophy” when it comes to evaluating wines. Now when you get a hundred or more wine critics and wine judges together to evaluate wines at a competition, it’s up to the organizer to get them on “the same page”. Thus the organizers will more or less now set the “standard or criteria” for judging.
David Creighton
Wine guru
1217
Wed May 24, 2006 10:07 am
ann arbor, michigan
Neil Courtney
Wine guru
3257
Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:39 pm
Auckland, New Zealand
Daniel Rogov wrote:P.S. Thomas errs, albeit in a minor way in only one thing. When he states that most who serve i the status of being judges at competitions "do it gratis (that’s without pay)", he may have forgotten that many of the most "prestigious" competitions do pay for air fare, hotel costs, a good number of meals and in addition to attending the wine fairs attendant to their competitions also offer gratis trips and winery visits after the fair and competition time. There is a not insignificant number of judges who "perform" like the circuit judges of old, making their way around the world by using competitions as their "jump-off" point for their travels. Not "pay" indeed, but for many hardly altruistic and certainly not without its rewards.
Daniel Rogov
Resident Curmudgeon
0
Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:10 am
Tel Aviv, Israel
Daniel Rogov wrote:Indeed, one of my many problems with competitions by judges - the entire panel system leads to thes statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean, that is to say where the mediocre rises and where the exceptional falls.
David Creighton
Wine guru
1217
Wed May 24, 2006 10:07 am
ann arbor, michigan
Rahsaan wrote:
Otherwise, I'm not sure how a large tasting panel would prefer mediocrity. Unless of course you had a panel full of mediocre judges. (Witness tv ratings). It all depends who is doing the judging.
Neil Courtney
Wine guru
3257
Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:39 pm
Auckland, New Zealand
Daniel Rogov wrote:I think we have to distinguish between true international competitions (e.g. VinItaly, London Wine and Spirits, Brussels, VinExpo) and local competitions (e.g. state fairs)
At many of the international competitions there are as many as 150 judges. Those generally sit in panels of seven and indeed one sommelier-in-traiing is assigned to each panel as a "server". Those generallly young people are there as part of their academic training and indeed, withthe exception of meals during the day, are not paid. Those working the "back room" are indeed paid, whether dishwashers, sorters, bottle numbering, whatever. And most certainly those from whatever legal of accounting firm there are paid as well. Worth keeping in mind too that such competitions are far from "charitable events" and those competitions (whether at the most respected venues or at such out-of-the-way places as Tiblisi, Larnaca, or Santiago are business ventures meant to make a profit.
As to more local events - indeed those are done to encourage local wineries, the local wine industry and yes, what some call "the culture of wine" and because of that many people are actually volunteers.
Best
Rogov
Daniel Rogov
Resident Curmudgeon
0
Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:10 am
Tel Aviv, Israel
Mark Lipton wrote:Rating by committee, whether in wine competition or scientific review, almost always favors safe choices devoid of risk over the truly innovative or unusual. Did you ever read the panel tastings of wine in the SF Comical? Their preferred choices are almost always bland and commercial. The reason is that, in a large group, you have a spectrum of tastes. Wines that you and I prefer get tossed out by the majority as "thin and shrilly acidic" whereas big, alcoholic frootbombs get tossed out as either atypical or undrinkable. In both cases, there's a passionate minority that loves those rejected wines, but majority rules, no? So, the group favorites tend to be clean, inoffensive and boring. And that's when the judges are competent at detecting flaws.
Daniel Rogov wrote:Rahasaan, Hi....
The regression to the mean to which I refer involves the fact that for every panel of six or seven judges both the highest and the lowest scores for each wine tasted are discarded when calculating the data. That tendency is compounded even more when two different panels taste the same wine, this meanng that four scores are automatically discarded.
Howie Hart
The Hart of Buffalo
6389
Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:13 pm
Niagara Falls, NY
Bill Spohn
He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'
9538
Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 pm
Vancouver BC
Rahsaan wrote:I don't think this is just about numbers and committee review but about the composition of the committee and their incentives. For scientific review, I can sort of see how people might favor safe choices in order not to appear foolish but then there is also the bias towards 'bold' 'pathbreaking' work that may in fact later turn out to be wrong.
And the judges on that medal panel are not randomly selected from the public so why can't they have better credentials and be pre-disposed to liking the shrilly acidic wines we do. I understand that they may not have those preferences, but surely that is a function of who gets selected to serve on silly wine judging panels (and one of the reasons I ignore such medals) as opposed to the concept of a panel. I think there are enough people on here and Disorder to form a better panel!
Mark Lipton wrote:In the review panels I've served on, appearing foolish isn't really a concern as the participants are incredibly astute and well-read. No, it's more about the inherent conservatism of panel review when there are limited resources to award.
You have an overly optimistic view of how many wine lovers share your preferences, Rahsaan. Sure, here and at Disorder you are among (mostly) like-minded individuals, but venture out to the Spectator, WCWN and eBob boards and poll their preferences.
Daniel Rogov
Resident Curmudgeon
0
Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:10 am
Tel Aviv, Israel
Howie Hart
The Hart of Buffalo
6389
Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:13 pm
Niagara Falls, NY
At the aforementioned Niagara County Fair, one year we decided to invite the food editor of one of the two large Buffalo newspapers to be a judge. She was born and raised in France, so, we thought she might be a pretty good judge. After the judging and awards ceremony, there would always be a social gathering for all contestants, judges and staff, so folks could taste each others' wines, etc. However, it seemed that all the award winning wines had disappeared. After searching the area, we found the esteemed food editor, in a very drunken state, loading all the good wines into the trunk of her car.Daniel Rogov wrote:...On the other hand, the policy in many cases is to send invitations not to a specific journalist but to the editors or various newspapers. Many of those papers do not have a regular wine critic so that "gift" of a free trip abroad goes to a loyal buddy.
Two horror stories will suffice: ...
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot, Google [Bot] and 2 guests