Very interesting article in WoFW by Steve Slatcher

[David M. Bueker]

Subjectivity in wine appreciation

http://www.worldoffinewine.com/news/sub ... on-6733716

[David M. Bueker]

Of particular interest to me was this bit early on, where Steve discusses varying perceptions. As someone who had a particular sense of smell, lost it due to a head injury, and then regained it over time, with different nuances/strengths/weaknesses, I am particularly interested in the concept of standards, objectivity & subjectivity.

In the simplest of situations, it might make sense to adopt a standard-observer approach for practical purposes. Consider the case where an enologist needs to test for the strength of a particular aroma in wines. Potential tasters will first be screened to ensure that they are sensitive to the aroma, and those who are insensitive to it will be rejected. Effectively, standard observers for the purposes of the experiment are being selected.

However, in the more normal case of people tasting wines outside the laboratory, where a raft of various flavors and other impressions can be important, the concept of a standard observer becomes problematic. While color blindness affects only approximately 8 percent of men and 0.05 percent of women, leaving the majority of the population as standard observers, it is a lot more common to have a specific anosmia (inability to smell a particular odor).

Thanks for the shout out, David. The article was actually published a couple of years ago, in the magazine and on the WFW website, but for some reason has just been republished on the website. It seems to have been a good idea though, as more people have latched onto it this time round.

It's a subject that has captured my interest for several years now, so I'm happy to discuss it further here.

[David M. Bueker]

As usual with WoFW articles, I need to re-read it first!

At least you are more succinct than David Schildknecht!

Look forward to reading later.

[Robin Garr]

Interesting article indeed, and first time to see it for me, too. Thanks, David, for posting, and Steve for writing.

[Robin Garr]

One thought along these lines, recognizing that "anecdote" is not a synonym for "data," I've generally been amazed by the consistency of reactions in small judging panels, in competitions where the judges compare notes and seek consensus before moving forward. This is relatively rare, maybe because of the possibility that more assertive judges will influence their peers, but in places where I've participated - Australia and New Zealand, mostly - peer pressure hasn't been an issue because in a large proportion of cases, all the individual tasters were in general agreement.

There are also plenty of examples where tasters come to different conclusions.

The tasting note section of WFW is instructive as they typically have 3 well-known critics describing the same wine - from the same bottle I believe. It often shows differences between tasters, and sometime the difference are huge.

There is also the statistical study of California wine competitions that shows very poor consistency. And Tom Stevenson also published data on Champagnes being judged at two competitions, claiming they showed consistency, but I was not impressed. (I cannot remember the references for these studies, but could try to dig them out if anyone is interested.)

If it is not just down to chance, it would be interesting to try to find the factors that lead to greater/lesser consistency. Maybe the judges at your competitions were particularly competent and well-instructed, Robin? Certainly the quality of judging in the California competitions has been questioned, and I suspect the WFW critics receive no special instructions about how to judge.

[David M. Bueker]

We had our blind tasting group last night. All of us present were very experienced, with at least 20 years in the group (with one guy in his 44th year...the group was founded in 1974). The range of scores (out of 20 based on a structured score sheet) for a few of the wines were quite wide, with up to 5 points between high and low. These were not unusual wines where we may have struggled with their characteristics or wine making processes (e.g. no orange wines). Two of the wines with the widest variance were a 2010 Il Poggione Brunello Riserva and a 2007 Guigal La Turque! I was among the lowest scorers of the two wines, marking them down for tasting too generic.

I know for my case, I struggled with a level of anonymity for a number of the wines. To me they tasted more of elevage than origin or grape. Another person nailed the Guigal as Northern Rhone, but could get no further. Meanwhile, in an earlier flight I had zero difficulty correctly picking out Piemontese Nebbiolo, but guesses around the table spanned the globe. I was among the highest scorers for the Nebbiolo, because they were not only good, but tasted of grape and (general) place.

(FYI, scores are all tabulated prior to revealing any wines)

[Robin Garr]

Maybe the judges at your competitions were particularly competent and well-instructed, Robin?

I'll claim no credit for my own competence, Steve. Most of the judges at the Sydney International seemed to be at a high level, though. Australian wine writers, and a couple of Oz and Kiwi wine makers. Hanging out pretty much all but sleeping hours for a week, they all impressed me as sensible and knowledgeable folks. (The other American was Charlie Olken, a guy with a distinctly California palate but also a well-earned reputation.)