Why don’t we reach out to this MW and see what they about Coravin? 
Sounds like JG seizing an opportunity to build on the myth of the super-taster.
I didn’t read the study in the OP, but screwcaps worst than corks… for corkscrew companies, yes?
Maybe Levi Dalton or Grape Radio would like me to explore the issue with a group of MW candidates in a podcast? 
I didn’t know they came in a podcast…
There must be hardly any Australian white wine NOT under screw cap. So there must be millions of bottles out there. MW’s should taste them rather than looking out for the minuscule number that may be obviously faulty and then consider them representative of the rest. May be Logic and Common sense should be part of the MW curriculum.
Sanjay,
Have you seen the MW curriculum? Or any of the exam questions?
A friend of mine just got accepted into the MW program, no simple feat in itself.
She described some of the very lengthy curriculum, required in person courses and a little bit about the blind tasting. She stated if you just ID the varietal, region etc that is a failing answer. A thorough discussion of the evidence in the glass is what’s expected.
Regarding screwcaps, count me as a fan. Every bottle I have twisted open has been fresh and clean. Granted most of the bottles have been 5 years old or less but the results have been 100% enjoyable.
Oliver, with all due respect, that negates Sanjay’s point about common sense and logic in no way. The study is garbage, and was sanctioned by the MW program. The self-importance of the MW program, as reflected by its website, is one thing. The quality of the output and accomplishments of most of its candidates and members is quite another. Greg T summarized it nicely above. Be impressed with Jancis, Lewin, Belfrage and the couple of others who have actually accomplished something beyond adding letters after their names. Ask if you really believe that had anything to do with the MW program. Then read anything that Lisa Perrotti-Brown has written and ask yourself if you still believe that the MW program is all that difficult after all. Jonas Salk, MD. Michael De Bakey, MD. Albert Schweitzer, MD. Any number of Presidents of the United States and heads of state around the world, JD. Most Nobel Prize winners, Ph.D. Such are the letters after one’s name that matter. And, of course, most of those folks do not feel the compulsive need to put those letters after their names every time that they write it. Unlike MWs, they are secure in their real-world accomplishments…
Bill,
I don’t need to ask myself if it’s difficult. I suspect I’m the only person here to have been in the MW program, some years ago, and I can attest to the general level of knowlege, seriousness and tasting ability of the MWs I met, and indeed many of the candidates. The exams were an excellent challenge to one’s understanding of various aspects of wine, and the tasting exams were extraordinary.
My time in the program taught a number of things that are very useful in my daily business, and perhaps more importantly taught me to continue to learn the fundamentals of my business, things like SO2 usage, brettanomyces, and closures.
That said, this study sounds very dodgy to me. But I haven’t actually read it, so it is of course impossible to say. The fact that people who have earned a solid qualification sometimes turn out poor work proves nothing; the fact that some lawyers are venal or stupid doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be lawyers.
If it weren’t such a challenge, why do you suppose people like Jancis Robinson, Olivier Humbrecht, Lewin and others are attracted to it?
Oiver,
I think you’re still missing the point. No one is saying the program itself is easy. Everyone is saying that the study, a study that was obviously approved, is absolute and total BS and in no way would qualify as a research paper for freshman writing course.
Kyle,
Well, that might be what you are saying, but I wasn’t taking issue with you. I don’t think you’ve read Bill’s last post very carefully; in it he asks ‘Then read anything that Lisa Perrotti-Brown has written and ask yourself if you still believe that the MW program is all that difficult after all.’ If you can find an important difference between ‘easy’ and ‘not that difficult’ you’re a better man than I.
Previously Sanjay wondered whether ‘logic and common sense should be part of the MW curriculum.’
Most importantly, the OP linked to Jamie Goode’s site, which doesn’t show the whole paper. I can’t find the paper on the internet; have you actually read the paper? I think (as I noted above) that the paper appears to be unsound, but since I haven’t actually read it, I’m obviously not in a position to judge.
Oliver,
The MW course may be very arduous. I am not commenting on that aspect.
It was the thesis that caught my attention. I would like to read the actual dissertation to make a firm opinion of the study. However, the overall impression as it was written on the blog appears flawed. I am involved in research and am I am a critical reviewer for number of journals. Hence, my statement.
Understood, Sanjay. The dissertation was accepted by the Institute, which means as I understand it that it would have been read by at least several people with knowlege of the subject. I have written the IMOW to see if they have published it, or if it’s available online, as I would like to actually read it, rather than a provocative paragraph about it.
I think it is more of a case where you don’t have to know how to write papers or do proper research or even know how to take a proper sample to be able to submit for your MW (not from the looks of it). That does not mean the program is not difficult…maybe Bill’s statement is a bit extreme and he’s associating proper research papers with the difficulty of the MW…I think the two have nothing to do with each other.
A lot of studies are flawed…this one seems even more so…That doesn’t mean she isn’t a great MW and doesn’t know her stuff about wine…The more bits of information that come in about her study the more it sounds extremely flawed in how she came to her conclusion…
Kevin, at some point, it has to go to the larger utility and credibility of the program, without regard to degree of difficulty. Bungee-jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge no doubt is a challenge with a high degree of difficulty, but that does not make it a worthwhile endeavor for most people. Sudoku, logic puzzles and chess are all challenging, but none involve programs and initials. They do often involve clubs of like-minded individuals. Too much is made of how those poor MW candidates have to correctly identify wines from obscure grapes that nobody gives a damn about. Too many MWs fit the profile of financially comfortable with time on their hands! Maybe a little bored and looking for something to do. Moreover, many who taste and buy wine for a living have accomplished more on their own in a highly practical rather than theoretical way. The MW program seems a particularly inefficient and sometimes haphazard way to amass such knowledge, and it seems too individualized and constantly changing to be anything remotely resembling a quasi-objective standard of achievement. As Oliver points out, holding a J.D. or Ph.D. is certainly no guarantee that the holder will amount to anything, but on the other hand, holding one of those degrees from quality institutions generally means that all holders ran very similar gauntlets to get there, and the long-term collective achievements of those holders create significant value for the degrees themselves.
If you hold yourself out as the gatekeeper for the highest level of knowledge of fine wine, then it seems to me that you owe the wine world published papers or other efforts that contribute directly and substantially to our understanding of wine. If you cannot do that, or worse, you choose not to do that, then you are an exclusive wine club and nothing more. As things stand, the vast majority of wine knowledge comes from researchers and writers not possessed of MW status. If the IMW serves anybody, it seems to be the British wine trade, not the public. Given the skepticism about the wine trade, especially the British trade, it should surprise no one that the IMW comes under richly deserved criticism from time to time.
Oliver, on the question of Jancis, Lewin, et al., I can find no basis for giving the IMW a drop of credit for their literary output. Some of the greats of the British trade taught Jancis about wine before she pursued the MW. Remington Norman quit. I am a fan of Lewin, Belfrage not so much, but both of them are competent writers, quite apart from the initials after their names. (Well, actually, Jancis and Nick Belfrage do not affix the magic initials to their names.)
Bill,
I’m not saying MWs are the main contributors to the wine world…and probably your assessment of it being more like a club is probably correct… Is it an accomplishment? Sure…It certainly isn’t easy…and they do know a considerable amount about wine…they probably all have very good palates about identifying wine…is any of that really important? It is impressive…but not sure if it is important. Do I trust their opinion about a particular wine more than my own? No…I doubt anyone on this board does.
I do think that papers like this, which look like have be done with flawed research certainly don’t help their status but I think most people still respect the opinions and knowledge that MWs do possess.
I belong to a self-monikered, semi-secret whisky society, of which I am a founder, and to a larger and looser world-wide association of whisky anoraks. Collectively, we have tasted and know more about whisky than most everyone else, probably in the history of mankind. Some of us are in the trade, but many are just obsessive amateur collectors, taster/drinkers, and geeks. Some of us publish papers and blogs and some put on programs. One sub-set, the Malt Maniacs, has a online magazine, taste many new/old/commonplace/obscure whiskies and have a blind competition annually after which they bestow awards (which some people even take seriously). Many of the Maniacs are my friends, a few of them may even know what they are doing/writing about, and one is a famous Alsatian wine maker and MW (and who, by the way, is a great whisky taster). This thread has re-kindled the idea that we should incorporate, formalize some of the things we do, test each other (blind) on obscure whiskies and whisky-making practices, which we do anyway for fun, and award ourselves a title. Master of Whisky (MW) is apparently taken. GPW (Grand Poobah of Whisky) has a nice ring to it, as does EW (Emperor of Whisky). Then we can monetize our knowledge and self-aggrandize by stringing all of our titles together: JD, GPW, or DDS, GPW, or PhD, GPW, or MD, GPW, or MBA GPW, etc. That would impress some people, I’m sure. One thing that we ALL agree about is that whisky screwcaps (which are cheap, garden variety screwcaps [clearly not Stelvin]) suck and provide an insufficient seal against evaporation, although no one has published a study to my knowledge. We have no collective opinion about wine screwcaps.
Wow…that’s one of your better rants, Bill. And makes ultimate sense to me.
I often wonder if someone like KermitLynch would pass the MW exam. Yet his contributions to wine are undeniable.
Tom
Any of you math types can help me get to 8.2%? TIA.