need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#1 Post by Philip Ente » June 10th, 2019, 12:57 pm

I'm working on a presentation of a neuroscience concept called top-down processing and its relation to wine tasting. In brief, top-down processing is the neurologic basis of optical illusions and there are examples of top-down processing modifying sensory input coming in during winetasting.

For this lecture what I'm looking for is some sort of verification of stories I have been told of a wine tasting of fake Petrus (I think Rudy and John Kapon were involved) from the 1920s, where Robert Parker rated some of these wines very highly. I've also heard stories of Allen Meadows giving very high grades to supposedly counterfeit Burgundies.

I would therefore appreciate any true evidence that these people did indeed taste, and give high marks to fake wines. (PM if desired) . This would be a useful addition to studies I will present on how the brains of wine novices were fooled by the price or label.

DanielP
Posts: 450
Joined: October 5th, 2015, 7:21 pm
Location: NYC

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#2 Post by DanielP » June 10th, 2019, 1:01 pm

Without knowing the quality of the replacement wine, I don't think it's really all that useful of an example. If, indeed, there are real scientists in the audience.
P@ik

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1702
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#3 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » June 10th, 2019, 1:17 pm

Indeed, all Parker and Meadows did, if they rated the wines highly, was to rate the wines highly. It would be hard to show that they rated the wines highly because they thought they were ritzy unless there was some objective way to determine that the wines were plonk in addition to being counterfeit. I don't doubt that critics are influenced by the knowledge of what they are drinking, but the anecdotal information you are seeking wouldn't be the strongest evidence of that.

User avatar
T. Melloni
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2165
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 9:18 pm

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#4 Post by T. Melloni » June 10th, 2019, 1:23 pm

Philip - I am not sure of the usefulness of the linked story to your top-down processing work, but I much enjoy the work Lettie Teague did with Chris Camarda (Andrew Will winemaker/owner) in creating a 1982 Mouton and deceiving a group in a wine tasting.
https://www.foodandwine.com/articles/wi ... -confesses

What I enjoyed is one serious wine collector ranked the fake Mouton as wine of the night, but that it remained his wine of the night even after learning it was a fake.
Sometimes known as Tho m@s
Limit of 32 characters; I am #33

User avatar
Anton D
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 29822
Joined: October 17th, 2013, 11:25 am
Location: Chico, CA

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#5 Post by Anton D » June 10th, 2019, 1:46 pm

T. Melloni wrote:
June 10th, 2019, 1:23 pm
Philip - I am not sure of the usefulness of the linked story to your top-down processing work, but I much enjoy the work Lettie Teague did with Chris Camarda (Andrew Will winemaker/owner) in creating a 1982 Mouton and deceiving a group in a wine tasting.
https://www.foodandwine.com/articles/wi ... -confesses

What I enjoyed is one serious wine collector ranked the fake Mouton as wine of the night, but that it remained his wine of the night even after learning it was a fake.
Great one! [cheers.gif]
Anton Dotson

What is man, when you come to think upon him, but a minutely set, ingenious machine for turning, with infinite artfulness, the fine red wine of Shiraz into urine?

User avatar
Mike Kuller
Posts: 1618
Joined: April 17th, 2012, 2:59 pm
Location: East SF Bay Area

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#6 Post by Mike Kuller » June 10th, 2019, 1:54 pm

No doubt you've see this study using MRI.

Why expensive wine appears to taste better: It's the price tag
When a bottle costs more, the reward center in the brain plays a trick on us
Date: August 14, 2017
University of Bonn

Summary:
Price labels influence our liking of wine: The same wine tastes better to participants when it is labeled with a higher price tag. Scientists have discovered that the decision-making and motivation center in the brain plays a pivotal role in such price biases to occur. The medial pre-frontal cortex and the ventral striatum are particularly involved in this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092949.htm
Last edited by Mike Kuller on June 11th, 2019, 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
No Vino Sin Cojones

Hao Lu
Posts: 55
Joined: October 15th, 2015, 5:02 pm

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#7 Post by Hao Lu » June 10th, 2019, 2:00 pm

Mike Kuller wrote:
June 10th, 2019, 1:54 pm
No doubt you've see this study using MRI.

Why expensive wine appears to taste better: It's the price tag
When a bottle costs more, the reward center in the brain plays a trick on us
Date: August 14, 2017
University of Bonn

Summary:
Price labels influence our liking of wine: The same wine tastes better to participants when it is labeled with a higher price tag. Scientists have discovered that the decision-making and motivation center in the brain plays a pivotal role in such price biases to occur. The medial pre-frontal cortex and the ventral striatum are particularly involved in this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092949.htm
nice article.
Same for all luxury goods.

User avatar
ClarkstonMark
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: December 19th, 2009, 12:13 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#8 Post by ClarkstonMark » June 10th, 2019, 2:17 pm

sounds like a pretty risky move to base your presentation on rumors
Mark Cronmiller
White Lake, MI

User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site Admin
<dfn>Site Admin</dfn>
Posts: 38648
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:46 am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#9 Post by Todd F r e n c h » June 10th, 2019, 2:28 pm

T. Melloni wrote:
June 10th, 2019, 1:23 pm
Philip - I am not sure of the usefulness of the linked story to your top-down processing work, but I much enjoy the work Lettie Teague did with Chris Camarda (Andrew Will winemaker/owner) in creating a 1982 Mouton and deceiving a group in a wine tasting.
https://www.foodandwine.com/articles/wi ... -confesses

What I enjoyed is one serious wine collector ranked the fake Mouton as wine of the night, but that it remained his wine of the night even after learning it was a fake.
that was a fantastic article - thanks for sharing it!
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP) (and have a "penchant for gossip" -KBI)

GregP
Posts: 459
Joined: October 15th, 2018, 4:59 pm

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#10 Post by GregP » June 10th, 2019, 2:40 pm

Would this qualify?

https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/0 ... world.html

I followed this at the time, though not sure what the final disposition of the case/investigation was.
G r e g P i a t i g o r s k i
I T B - i s k a r a n u w i n e

User avatar
Hank Victor
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 408
Joined: July 21st, 2018, 8:36 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#11 Post by Hank Victor » June 10th, 2019, 3:43 pm

What about the Hardy Rodenstock tastings involving Michael Broadbent, Robert Parker, and Jancis Robinson.
- ITB
Take a chance, Columbus did..

"Two years away from being two years away”

User avatar
GregT
Posts: 7843
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 3:12 pm

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#12 Post by GregT » June 10th, 2019, 4:03 pm

There were several threads.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=142281

Here's a summary and note that Meadows claimed afterwards that he was suspicious, but he never bothered to say anything at the time he supposedly was suspicious.

http://www.worldoffinewine.com/news/fra ... rs-4202782

But there are some problems with your approach. The critics don't necessarily score wines that they have in big tastings or dinners, and if they do, those scores wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the scores they gave the wine at an earlier time, if they did so.

This is more to the point I think, a blog from Dr Vino about blind tasting with RP. I know a few people who were there and they weren't impressed.

https://www.drvino.com/2009/10/02/blind ... rt-parker/

Lettie caught a lot of flack for her article when it was published, but it seems more to the point of your study. And seriously, the guy shouldn't have been upset. I always want to prefer a cheaper wine.

Part of the reason is the way people taste wines. Look at all the TNs on here and on CT. People struggle to come up with descriptions of flavors and aromas and they talk about the acidity and tannins, usually while looking at the label. All of those things should help them remember the wine really well so they can identify it blind anywhere.

But that's not how people taste. If someone bought wine because it was highly recommended (just look at the threads about being on this or that list), they're probably going to score the wine favorably, and especially when someone pours you a rare old bottle, you're not likely to sniff that it's not up to snuff and you'd prefer something else. So Burghound and those guys who are no more skilled or adept than anyone else, will try a wine that they rarely get to drink, and if it's halfway decent, they'll rhapsodize about the ethereal quality of the wines from that era.

It's kind of funny to see people write these long TNs that make you think they've completely understood that wine but then they can't identify it blind a few weeks later.

Perhaps off point, but I know for a fact that many of the known critics have scored the same wine differently. I'm not saying anything
others don't know, but if you give them two bottles that came off the same bottling line on the same day but have different labels, you're going to get two different scores.

It's not even nefarious. Sometimes a restaurant wants a wine and they don't want the same label that's sold next door in the retail shop. Or sometimes a customer backs out.

And it gets more interesting. I once put the exact same wine side by side in a shop, with completely different labels. Obviously they stated what was in the bottle, but the label designs and colors and the brand names were different. The owner wanted to see which sold better and said he'd order more of the top seller. When I came in two weeks later he was really excited about the results. They broke down by ethnic group. Who knew? In any event, the wines sold equally and he ordered more of both and over time, they developed pretty substantial followings.
G . T a t a r

[i]"the incorrect overuse of apostrophes is staggering these days. I wonder if half the adults these days have any idea what they are for." Chris Seiber, 5/14/19[/i]

User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#13 Post by Philip Ente » June 11th, 2019, 7:36 am

Thanks for the responses.
First of all "top-down processing"is an entirely different phenomena than what is being suggested here- that the tasters were influenced by the label or price. Top-down processing involves an entirely unconscious modification of incoming sensory information based on cognitive profiles. Like I said, it is basically an optical illusion.

I googled Parker/fake Petrus and obtained several links including the two below. I'm not a lawyer but although they provide some evidence that Parker indeed gave a 100 points note to a fake Petrus, in fact calling it "out of this universe" , I'm not sure their evidence is strong enough for me to present this information. I'll be giving this talk to winemakers, two of which have had their wine counterfeited in large quantities. I therefore want to be pretty certain of my content and would like to hear back if you think this is enough evidence.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007 ... ottles/amp
in this article the relevant information is on one of the last pages.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/ro ... icle+Links

User avatar
Victor Hong
Posts: 14773
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#14 Post by Victor Hong » June 11th, 2019, 7:41 am

GregT wrote:
June 10th, 2019, 4:03 pm
There were several threads.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=142281
..............
When a critic insists that one was not fooled, especially by the party paying for the tasting, then that critic manages to fool only oneself while also deceiving others.
WineHunter.

User avatar
David Glasser
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6367
Joined: August 16th, 2009, 6:03 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#15 Post by David Glasser » June 11th, 2019, 9:21 am

Maybe enough "evidence" to convince a naive audience but it wouldn’t hold up to a review of your peers. So I guess it depends on your goal.

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6153
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#16 Post by Mark Golodetz » June 11th, 2019, 9:25 am

I used to judge for a number of organizations. All the tastings are of course blind. One of them used to test judges by putting two bottles of the same wine into our tasting, usually one at the beginning and be towards the end. It wasn’t a case of identifying, but making sure the judges scored them within a couple of points. Somebody checked for bottle variation, so the process was seen to be fair. Not sure how they used the results, or whether judges were disinvited as we never got the results, even though we knew that it was being done.
ITB
I could agree with you, but then we both would be wrong.

Doug Schulman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 9:42 am
Location: MA

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#17 Post by Doug Schulman » June 11th, 2019, 10:06 am

DanielP wrote:
June 10th, 2019, 1:01 pm
Without knowing the quality of the replacement wine, I don't think it's really all that useful of an example.
My thought exactly. Rudy and other top forgers are probably masterful blenders.
ITB - retail sales and education

Mel Knox
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 8:46 am
Location: San francisco

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#18 Post by Mel Knox » June 11th, 2019, 10:20 am

When I first got into the wine biz, there were lots of people who had tasted vintages from the 19th century etc. Until around 1972 classic (famous) wines were cheap.
Nowadays peoples' experience with older wines goes back thirty five years. Then there is the fact there are a lot more wineries who have been making wine since the early '70s.

Supposedly Hardy poured some 19th century Lafite for a bunch of people....every one ooed and awed until the late Haskell Norman piped up and said,. I've had 12 bottles of this and this one is completely different.
ITB

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1702
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#19 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » June 11th, 2019, 11:21 am

Philip Ente wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 7:36 am
Thanks for the responses.
First of all "top-down processing"is an entirely different phenomena than what is being suggested here- that the tasters were influenced by the label or price. Top-down processing involves an entirely unconscious modification of incoming sensory information based on cognitive profiles. Like I said, it is basically an optical illusion.

I googled Parker/fake Petrus and obtained several links including the two below. I'm not a lawyer but although they provide some evidence that Parker indeed gave a 100 points note to a fake Petrus, in fact calling it "out of this universe" , I'm not sure their evidence is strong enough for me to present this information. I'll be giving this talk to winemakers, two of which have had their wine counterfeited in large quantities. I therefore want to be pretty certain of my content and would like to hear back if you think this is enough evidence.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007 ... ottles/amp
in this article the relevant information is on one of the last pages.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/ro ... icle+Links
It is indeed the case that top-down processing is not at all the same as bias confirmation. It is more a theory of how we do perceive than a claim about how we may falsify our perceptions. That being the case, a critic who is fooled and a critic who is not fooled would both be doing their perceiving top down. So even if you could prove that a critic were fooled, what would it prove about your theory.

User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#20 Post by Philip Ente » June 11th, 2019, 12:41 pm

Jonathan Loesberg wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 11:21 am
Philip Ente wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 7:36 am
Thanks for the responses.
First of all "top-down processing"is an entirely different phenomena than what is being suggested here- that the tasters were influenced by the label or price. Top-down processing involves an entirely unconscious modification of incoming sensory information based on cognitive profiles. Like I said, it is basically an optical illusion.

I googled Parker/fake Petrus and obtained several links including the two below. I'm not a lawyer but although they provide some evidence that Parker indeed gave a 100 points note to a fake Petrus, in fact calling it "out of this universe" , I'm not sure their evidence is strong enough for me to present this information. I'll be giving this talk to winemakers, two of which have had their wine counterfeited in large quantities. I therefore want to be pretty certain of my content and would like to hear back if you think this is enough evidence.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007 ... ottles/amp
in this article the relevant information is on one of the last pages.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/ro ... icle+Links
It is indeed the case that top-down processing is not at all the same as bias confirmation. It is more a theory of how we do perceive than a claim about how we may falsify our perceptions. That being the case, a critic who is fooled and a critic who is not fooled would both be doing their perceiving top down. So even if you could prove that a critic were fooled, what would it prove about your theory.
Top-down processing is a neurophysiologic phenomena. It has almost nothing to do with consciousness and nothing to do with bias confirmation.

I don't see where I ever stated a "theory" and my " goal" is merely to explain the impact of top-down processing in wine appreciation to a group of wine makers and writers.

As I'm trying to explain, I would certainly like to be able to back up anything I say. Don't know if what's in the articles I cited give sufficient evidence. I don't want to be accused of slandering Parker or Meadows.

Doug Schulman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 9:42 am
Location: MA

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#21 Post by Doug Schulman » June 11th, 2019, 1:30 pm

How would you be backing up anything without knowing what was in the bottle and what it smelled and tasted like? What if it was a very believable forgery?
ITB - retail sales and education

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32714
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#22 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » June 11th, 2019, 1:34 pm

Especially if it was delivered by helicopter.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1702
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#23 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » June 11th, 2019, 2:25 pm

So, Philip, why precisely are you interested in critics giving high evaluations to counterfeit wines? How would the case be different from their giving high evaluation to any other wines?

User avatar
Sh@n A
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 994
Joined: July 9th, 2018, 8:21 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#24 Post by Sh@n A » June 11th, 2019, 2:49 pm

is it that bad for a critic to give a high score to a counterfeit wine? A good counterfeit wine should be better, without limitations on ingredients and production method.
/ @ g r @ \

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16631
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#25 Post by Howard Cooper » June 11th, 2019, 4:40 pm

Anecdote. When in Bordeaux in 2014, we visited Mouton. During the tasting part of the visit, we also had barrel samples of the d’Armailhac and Clerc Milon, which are owned by the same owners. The d'Armailhac had some of the power of the Mouton and the Clerc Milon had some of the finesse. I horrified the tour guide when I suggested that the two wines be combined (they both are from Pauillac). Then, after drinking most of each wine, I combined what I had left, to the horror of the tour guide, and think it tasted better than each of the d'Armailhac or Clerc Milon did separately. In fact, it tasted a good bit like the Mouton.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

Jayson Cohen
Posts: 1867
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#26 Post by Jayson Cohen » June 12th, 2019, 12:17 pm

Howard Cooper wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:40 pm
Anecdote. When in Bordeaux in 2014, we visited Mouton. During the tasting part of the visit, we also had barrel samples of the d’Armailhac and Clerc Milon, which are owned by the same owners. The d'Armailhac had some of the power of the Mouton and the Clerc Milon had some of the finesse. I horrified the tour guide when I suggested that the two wines be combined (they both are from Pauillac). Then, after drinking most of each wine, I combined what I had left, to the horror of the tour guide, and think it tasted better than each of the d'Armailhac or Clerc Milon did separately. In fact, it tasted a good bit like the Mouton.
The tour guide doesn’t seem to value or appreciate counter-terroirism. Such naïveté.

User avatar
Peter Metzger
Posts: 829
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 7:09 pm
Location: NYC

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#27 Post by Peter Metzger » June 12th, 2019, 2:48 pm

Victor Hong wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 7:41 am

..............
When a critic insists that one was not fooled, especially by the party paying for the tasting, then that critic manages to fool only oneself while also deceiving others.
[/quote]

This sounds strangely like Richard Nixon’s farewell speech to White House staffers after he resigned. [snort.gif]
Peter

Jürgen Steinke
Posts: 1092
Joined: September 30th, 2009, 6:28 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#28 Post by Jürgen Steinke » June 13th, 2019, 7:42 am

When I tasted with the Grand Jury Europeen it was pretty usual to have the same wine twice in the same setting. At least. I remember one occasion when the first 5 wines were the same but coming from different sources (Leoville Poyferre 2001). I was confused because the wines had obviously tons of similarities but I couldn't believe that its actually 5 times the same wine. I thought I have lost my tasting abilities over night, was under the weather or something like that. I rated the wines within 2 or 3 points because I actually felt there were small differences. But to put tasters in such situations can be counterproductive because I needed quite a while until I got my confidence back. And I wasn't confident enough to state that the 5 first glasses may contain the same wine but from different bottles. Though I had actually the idea that this could be the truth. Well – human nature is a super complex issue.

User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#29 Post by Philip Ente » June 13th, 2019, 8:23 am

Jurgen and others,
I understand what you are saying about variations and possibly very good counterfeit wines (Joe Davis, the most Burgundian of our local Pinot producers went to a tasting of Rudy counterfeits and said most were actually pretty good Burgundies)- but the Parker issue I cited above would be different: I don't see how someone could fake a wine of the level of a 1921 Petrus.

Again, this post has nothing to do with me trying to trip up wine tasters , just looking for one more example of top-down processing for my lecture.

DanielP
Posts: 450
Joined: October 5th, 2015, 7:21 pm
Location: NYC

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#30 Post by DanielP » June 13th, 2019, 8:34 am

Philip Ente wrote:
June 13th, 2019, 8:23 am
Jurgen and others,
I understand what you are saying about variations and possibly very good counterfeit wines (Joe Davis, the most Burgundian of our local Pinot producers went to a tasting of Rudy counterfeits and said most were actually pretty good Burgundies)- but the Parker issue I cited above would be different: I don't see how someone could fake a wine of the level of a 1921 Petrus.

Again, this post has nothing to do with me trying to trip up wine tasters , just looking for one more example of top-down processing for my lecture.
Maybe you have it backwards. Instead, our expectation of the 1921 Petrus is so high that we think it should taste as good as one of Rudy's counterfeits
P@ik

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1702
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#31 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » June 13th, 2019, 11:20 am

Philip Ente wrote:
June 13th, 2019, 8:23 am
Jurgen and others,
I understand what you are saying about variations and possibly very good counterfeit wines (Joe Davis, the most Burgundian of our local Pinot producers went to a tasting of Rudy counterfeits and said most were actually pretty good Burgundies)- but the Parker issue I cited above would be different: I don't see how someone could fake a wine of the level of a 1921 Petrus.

Again, this post has nothing to do with me trying to trip up wine tasters , just looking for one more example of top-down processing for my lecture.
And, I'll ask again, given that top-down processing is a theory of how we do perceive and not how we make mistakes, what particular relevance does a wine critic giving a good tasting note to a a fake wine, as opposed to a real wine, have to do with it? Wouldn't both cases be cases of top-down processing?

User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#32 Post by Philip Ente » June 13th, 2019, 12:14 pm

and again:
"I don't see how someone could fake a wine of the level of a 1921 Petrus. "

If it was indeed a fake, his perception was most likely modified by top-down processing .

top-down processing is not a theory of how we perceive

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32714
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#33 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » June 13th, 2019, 12:23 pm

There are umpteen gazillion references to top-down processing on Google. This is a representative summary explanation:

Top-down processing is when we form our perceptions starting with a larger object, concept, or idea before working our way toward more detailed information.

So how is that not about how we perceive?

Or is top-down the view from the 'copter?
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1702
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#34 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » June 13th, 2019, 12:33 pm

Philip Ente wrote:
June 13th, 2019, 12:14 pm
and again:
"I don't see how someone could fake a wine of the level of a 1921 Petrus. "

If it was indeed a fake, his perception was most likely modified by top-down processing .

top-down processing is not a theory of how we perceive
I should have said it's a theory of one way we perceive. Here is an admittedly popularizing explanation (please correct it if it is inaccurate):

"If you look at a diagram of the central nervous system, you will notice that the brain is literally positioned higher, or on top, of the sensory systems. Therefore, higher-level cognitive processes, such as thinking, are considered to be at the top of the sensation and perception process. On the other hand, lower level brain structures, such as those involved in the sensory systems of vision, touch, or hearing, are considered to be at the bottom.

Top-down processing refers to how our brains make use of information that has already been brought into the brain by one or more of the sensory systems. Top-down processing is a cognitive process that initiates with our thoughts, which flow down to lower-level functions, such as the senses. This is in contrast to bottom-up processing, which is the process of the senses providing information about the environment up to the brain."

One can't mistake a wine for a 21 Petrus unless one has tasted it before. That is not the same as giving a good note to a counterfeit wine presented to you as a 21 Petrus. In the first case, the mistake might come as a result of any number of reasons, including that the wine one has mistaken for it does, for some reason taste a lot like it. In the second case, bias confirmation might explain the error if one does not take the note has having been made completely in response to the wine one is tasting.

In neither case would top-down processing explain the error any better than it would explain the case of having rightly identified a 21 Petrus because one's taste sensation was informed by information about 21 Petrus, Petrus, Pomerol, bordeaux and wine that one already knew.

User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#35 Post by Philip Ente » June 13th, 2019, 12:58 pm

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
June 13th, 2019, 12:23 pm
There are umpteen gazillion references to top-down processing on Google. This is a representative summary explanation:

Top-down processing is when we form our perceptions starting with a larger object, concept, or idea before working our way toward more detailed information.

So how is that not about how we perceive?

Or is top-down the view from the 'copter?
your right

I should have gone to google university

To Jonathan

this stuff is quite complicated and is based on brain mapping and psychophysical data, and like I said, I am only looking for a possible example. I have several, far more concrete examples

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 32714
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#36 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » June 13th, 2019, 1:06 pm

Well at least now I know what it is:

It's what you use to look down on everyone. ;)
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

DanielP
Posts: 450
Joined: October 5th, 2015, 7:21 pm
Location: NYC

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#37 Post by DanielP » June 13th, 2019, 1:36 pm

Philip Ente wrote:
June 13th, 2019, 12:58 pm
D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
June 13th, 2019, 12:23 pm
There are umpteen gazillion references to top-down processing on Google. This is a representative summary explanation:

Top-down processing is when we form our perceptions starting with a larger object, concept, or idea before working our way toward more detailed information.

So how is that not about how we perceive?

Or is top-down the view from the 'copter?
your right

I should have gone to google university

To Jonathan

this stuff is quite complicated and is based on brain mapping and psychophysical data, and like I said, I am only looking for a possible example. I have several, far more concrete examples
I get that you want a sort of more fun, real-world example, and blind tasting anecdotes could work. But this particular example is a really poor example, not least of which is that there isn't any sort of control whatsoever to prove your point. The entire example rests on the postulation that a wine cannot be faked to the level of a 1921 Petrus, which is really a faulty assumption to base your entire example on, for numerous reasons. It's not like a real 1921 Petrus was present as a comparison/control.

There must be examples of critics who scored certain wines better/worse when tasting a wine blind versus with the label.
P@ik

User avatar
Philip Ente
Posts: 836
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 4:15 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#38 Post by Philip Ente » June 14th, 2019, 7:04 am

A side question:
Parker rated a wine 100 points and said "it was out of this universe" and it is pretty certain from the articles I cited that it was a fake wine .
Does this mean a counterfeiter can make wine of the same organoleptic level of a 21 Petrus? If so , sign me up for his mailing list

DanielP
Posts: 450
Joined: October 5th, 2015, 7:21 pm
Location: NYC

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#39 Post by DanielP » June 14th, 2019, 7:49 am

Your fallacy is assuming that a real 1921 would've elicited the same "out of this universe" reaction. Just given the age, bottle variation, and any storage provenance issues associated with such a wine, I wouldn't expect such a wine to always be great.

Your second fallacy is assuming that the fake wine is not a great wine. For all we know, the counterfeit mixed together some Parker 100 point wines to make this petrus 1921. That would still net you a really healthy profit. Rudy, as one example of a counterfeiter, by all accounts was a supreme taster and master "mixer" who made delicious wine.

But that's beside the point. Even if there was a label bias that informed Parker's perception beyond his tactile senses, your example doesn't clearly really show that. Now, if that same fake wine were served in another label and received a significantly different reaction, that would be the ticket
P@ik

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1702
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#40 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » June 14th, 2019, 7:52 am

It means Parker liked it 100 points worth. It could have been a bottle of Harlan that someone counterfeited as a 21 Petrus. But it would still be a wine that Parker liked 100 points worth. I think you are fixated on his giving a counterfeit wine a good review, which may say something about his abilities to identify wine, or something about his taste in wine, or something about bias confirmation, or nothing about any of those things. But it is a side question.

Doug Schulman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 9:42 am
Location: MA

Re: need evidence that these famous critics were fooled

#41 Post by Doug Schulman » June 14th, 2019, 9:56 am

Yes, there are several unfounded assumptions needed to get to this score being evidence of anything.

Other Parker 100 point wines:
2004 Termanthia
2008 Grange
2013 Plumpjack Reserve Cabernet
multiple Torbreck Shirazes
a bunch of wines from Verite

I'd say at least some of these are quite reproducible in terms of quality and style. Some of them must be downright generic tasting (based on other vintages from the same eras of these wines). So, the 100 point score might not mean much at all. This is in addition to the points made in the previous two posts.
ITB - retail sales and education

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”