First of all, I am much in favor of blind tasting and that, as is said, whenever possible and under certain circumstances. Whenever possible means largely when wines are sampled in one’s own tasting room. True, some 50% of all wines that many critics taste are tasted at trade exhibitions (where it sometimes possible to taste blind and sometimes not), when visiting wineries (when it is almost impossible to set up blind tastings), and when visiting a wine consortium (again sometimes possible and sometimes not to taste blind).
The clearest single advantages of tasting blind is that it eliminates label bias and anticipations based on previous tastings of the same wine or of wines from the same winery. As to tasting non-blind, I do not perceive label influence as a major problem because that is precisely where the word “professionalism” comes into play. It’s all like listening to the sales spiel of a winemaker at a tasting. The professional learns to focus out on all but what is of importance to his tasting ability. The same is true with labels. It takes concentration but one can indeed set aside nearly all of our biases when tasting. Difficult but possible.
I also agree that blind tastings should arrange wines in comparable groups or flights or, as Mr. Parker calls them “peer groups”. In one’s own tasting room that should always be possible. What should be known is the vintage range, the varietal and the area/s being tasted. Nothing more. After the tasting note has been made no changes in the note or the score should be made. The only thing that might vary somewhat is the projected drinking window and that indeed based on the history of the wine or winery in question.
Some claim that not only should we critics always taste blind but that we should not allow ourselves to receive samples from producers. Now being perfectly honest, there is not an individual critic on this planet who has the budget to buy all of the wines that need to be tasted. That would mean that instead of tasting 5,000 or more wines a year, most critics would be limited to tasting 250-500 wines. Not exactly what we expect of a professional critic. That also means that we should not be tasting at wineries or at exhibitions. And that in turn means no barrel tastings and no advance tasting notes.
Some worry that producers will send “special” bottles to critics. Indeed there are some who do that and that is why a random number of wines are indeed purchased after first tastings – to be certain that no “games” are being played. The concept of purchasing is also for wines that either terribly under- or over-perform or for those wines that are not sent by a producer (their right and privilege) but need to be reviewed for one’s publication. For the most part, however, producers simply won’t go to the bother of sending out “special” wines. It involves too much work and cost and is much too embarrassing to be caught. (I do remember days when that happened but as they say “them days if pretty much gone forever”)
Some claim that tasting blind offers an unrealistic picture because wines should always be tasted with the foods to which they are best suited. I disagree strongly. The evaluation of a wine should be determined entirely by its standards and the critic’s interpretation of those standards. Nearly all wines taste better when consumed with food and certainly nearly every wine on the planet will taste better when consumed with cheese. Even though not always stated, the tasting note should make it apparent with which foods a wine will pair.
Some feel that tasting too many wines blind or otherwise in a too-rapid session does not give a true picture of what the wine will be like in half an hour, an hour, three hours or a day or two later. I agree with the concept of short term follow-up re-tastings and that is why many during their blind or even non-blind tastings will re-arrange their glasses so that a second tasting is possible after the first has been completed (that is to say, returning to various flights after each flight has been tasted). That second tasting will generally be within 1 – 3 hours after the initial sampling and the critic who cannot tell from that second tasting where the wine will be in another 5 – 6 hours should not be calling him/herself a professional. As to where the wine will be in two or three days, I frankly don’t give a damn as I believe no wine should be held responsible for its condition one full day after it was opened.
Questions, comments and objections will be most welcome.
Best
Rogov
![[truce.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/d33e712b50d5efc2425bf219c404fbdb7ed0ba50.gif "truce"){kind=small}
![[welldone.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/fc9709a841aa9379fd892a9cf0b535b05f473b86.gif "[welldone.gif]"){kind=small}