Should critics taste blind?

WINE TALK
81

Fr: Looks like Betty covets you…

But enough of this drift, There is a place for everything and a taster for every taste. Clive Coates, for example, is not a blind-taster, as I recall, yet has enjoyed a very successful and respected (by many) career. Perhaps in early years of wine appreciation many tasters are most comfortable with single-perspective judgement and education while juried-tastings appeal to wine-lovers with more experience. Seems like a balance of both is most valuable. Of course, there will always be periods where a certain individual or jury is most trusted or not. It is up to the professional taster or jury-organizer to keep the public fairly informed of standards, guidelines and technique if they wish to maintain the confidence of their audience.

82

Agreed

83

I assume this means they only review many of the top Bordeaux wines after the futures campaigns? As far as I understand it is not possible, regardless of how busy or how much time a critic is willing to devote, to taste quite a number of top Bordeaux wines before release except at property, non-blind and with producer representatives present. For those that purchase futures, this wouldn’t be very useful. Of course, I could be mistaken.

That said, generally I do like the idea of critics tasting blind when possible.

84

Frank

Great to see you posting…

I realize that your source of information is the same as mine on that matter, nevertheless, I have heard to the contrary. James Suckling tastes BDX blind from what I know. If WS, or your source would like to come forward to confirm or deny it, I would appreciate that. I have watched various videos on WS online, showing Suckling, where he says he tastes blind. If he does not taste Mouton or Lafite in that format, then that is news to me, however we do know that his final scores are from blind btls, just as Robert Parker’s apparently is. In fact, Robert Parker buys all of his BDX for final scores from retail stores in America, according to Parker’s book in 2003. I wonder where he is going to buy all of his 2007s for review. Max, you want to supply them?

85

We are in agreement in preferring blind tasting in this case. Although I know reasonable people make reasonable and often valid arguments on both sides. As for critics having bottles sent to them for earlier, preliminary tasting, I have asked a number of people but have yet to get any information I would call definitive. Hopefully, we’ll find out.

86

To my knowledge, absolutly nobody , who ever he is, has the possibility, during the primeurs, to taste “blind” the first , LLC and some others.

87

Thank you Francois, I was and remain curious, but for me, it still does not change much, either way, as I know the final review is blind and WS only posts barrel scores for Port and BDX.

88

Well, being part of the team in Elmundovino, I must say that blind tasting in peer groups is, for me, the best approach to judge a group of wines in the context of a vintage. This is what we do in elmundovino, and there have been a number of examples of wines that would fit the John’s “road kill” feature. As an example, Mogador and Erasmus 2006, were given low scores, specially if compared to other vintages.

I also agree with some of the views in non blind tasting: barrel tasting on site; tasting some wines young (Joh Jos Prum and his use of sulfur comes to mind); but it should be stated whenever this happens

All in all, the most important aspect in tasting wines is to be honest. And the easyest way of being honest is to taste blind

89

Can anybody give me one example where Parker scored a “regular” Chateauneuf cuvee higher than a “special” Chateauneuf cuvee from any producer he likes? They are not tasted blind.

Not saying that in most cases that should be the case with good winemakers, but what are the odds?

90

So funny !

So funny to read the post of the great new wine critic Jeff Leve on erobert. He did launch, like a second used rockett, after a complete reading (no doubt) of what was written here, a long post about blind versus no-blind.
Obviously, though Robert Parker has always said that, whenever possible, he tastes blind, finally, Leve personnal preference is for no-blind. I respect those in favor of this system but nobody will convince me that, except an handfull of top critics like Parker or Bettane, all tasters are not oriented by the name written on the label.
When you are a special guest in a top château, when you sleep there, when you get the red carpet, you must have some cocoyotes to criticize if necessary. Oh yes, you find some proper wordings where, nicely, you downgrade by some short millimeters your compliments in order to show a so-called “independance” spirit.
Well, this was discussed here at lenght. The key point for me is that a proper evaluation of the qualities of a wine can be done ONLY in comparisons. Then you may develop strong and intelligent arguments : the famous of so necessary “tasting with peers”.
We did discussed at lenght also this topic on my blog, and Michel Bettane, member of GJE has said very wise opinion : to get a real approach on a wine, as a critic, you MUST taste it just before bottling, at the property, and then, only 10 or 15 years later.
The recent scoring by RP on the 82 is eloquent about that.

blahblah

91

Jeff Leve is dying to be a part of this board, but he cannot post here, so he would rather carry on the same conversation over there.

He is centering his focus on barrel scores, and whether James Suckling tastes blind in BDX. Does anyone really care? Yes, Leve, because he has to put Parker back on that pedestal that he has fallen off of.

Never mind the fact that ALL of WS final scores are done in a blind format and virtually NONE of Parker’s are.

Those are just factual details to leave out.

92

There is good logic to many of the comments about the influence of knowing while tasting of the history of a winery. Those lead us to agree that blind tasting is best for final tasting notes and scorings. And, going even a step further, relates to the need for as many re-tastings over time as possible.

My only objection to all of that takes the form of two questions:

(a) Would we have critics do away altogether with visiting wineries or other settings in which vertical tastings are carried out?

or alternatively

(b) Would we have the critics note that such tastings and scores were awarded under such circumstances - a kind of “warning” if you will to readers that there may be some unconscious bias involved in that particular tasting note or set of tasting notes.

Me…I opt for the alternative.

Best
Rogov

93

Thanks to all of you for this well rounded and non biased discussion. I love the type of blind tasting that Daniel is describing…I call them “limited blind” because we have a known, similar group of wines. In this case we get to evaluate a wine within certain parameters and contexts. These can be very informative and quite revealing. Of course, there is always the chance of an off bottle but that is just one of the factors that wine drinkers deal with. OTOH, I believe that blind tastings are not the end all and be all to evaluate a wine. I really don’t see the purpose of evaluating older wines blind as there are so many factors that can influence/alter the tasters perceptions. I also don’t really see what is gained by tasting a Rioja next to a Chianti next to a Bordeaux next to a Napa cab…etc.
As others have so eloquently stated…the key is honesty and due diligence.

Cheers!
Marshall [wink.gif]

94

Marshall,

Thank you…you should check out my actual notes on the 2005 CDPs (No Colombis in the lineup though)

If Robert Parker lined up 50 Napa Cabs, all priced $50-$100 and reviewed them blind, I cannot see how anyone would say that this is not useful. No one is asking a critic to taste Chianti vs Barolo vs Napa Cab vs. Aussie Shiraz…just taste like Robert Parker claims to taste, BLIND WITHIN THE PEER GROUP. If you are not going to taste that way, then do not claim to taste that way. Jay Miller, in his interview with Wines of Chile, said that he tastes by producer, mixing ALL GRAPE VARIETALS, red and white!

Why the hell would he taste like that? Oh yeah, because he cannot compare Riojas from different importers, because then there would have to be two importers in the room with him.

95

I don’t necessarily think critics should taste blind but I think they should taste consistently one way or the other as many have said.

I do think if you taste blind and your scores come from tasting blind then you disclose that as your methodology - a la Wine Spectator. I agree with their methodology of then retasting some known wines that score abnormally poor or retasting that is unknown that scored unusually high.

I like Parker’s supposed method of tasting Bdx where he buys bottles and tastes them over a period of time. His experience with Haut Brion for instance is helping in knowing what it tastes like now and in the future.

I DO NOT like this shotgun approach of tasting all sorts of different varietals as quickly as possible and then assigning a score…at least not for a professional critic.

I also think that for instance, RP’s tasting/scoring methodology should be better disclosed. Example - I want to know if that 93 he gave a producer’s wine was in a blind tasting by region, from bottle purchased, in a big mass tasting or with the producer at the winery. I have said this before but he tastes with Manfred at SQN, he tastes with John Alban at Alban, with Mike Officer at Carlisle. I think those facts should be disclosed.

I also think that if you receive payment from producers as an organization you should disclose who is paying your organization so that any wines in the blind tasting coming from a producer or industry organization that paid you should be disclosed.

I guess I want consistency in methodology and full disclosure if you deviate from that methodology or take payment from an industry group or winery.

96

I suppose critics should taste blind if they feel it their duty to put things in order-but to me putting things in order is antithetical to the nature of wine. I enjoy both poetic and factual wine writing, particularly that which always has in mind that a wines’ meaning can only be expressed at the dining table, and I would very much like it if consumers didn’t want points or rankings any more-after all, winegrowing and wine drinking are not sporting activities.

97

I stole this from Greg Tatar…

"With regard to vintages of Bordeaux in the bottle, I prefer to taste these wines in what is called a “blind tasting.” A blind tasting can be either “single blind” or “double blind.” This does not mean one is actually blindfolded and served the wines, but rather that in a single-blind tasting, the taster knows the wines are from Bordeaux but does not know the identities of the châteaux or the vintages. In a double-blind tasting, the taster knows nothing other than that several wines from anywhere in the world, in any order, from any vintage, are about to be served.

For bottled Bordeaux, I purchase the wines at retail and usually conduct all my Bordeaux tastings under single-blind conditions- I do not know the identity of the wine but since I prefer to taste in peer groups, I always taste wines from the same vintage. . ."

  • Bordeaux, A Consumers Guide to the World’s Finest Wines, 4th Edition, 2003 It’s from the front section, titled “Tasting Methods”.

Also this from erobertparker today:
"When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers’ names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner. . ."

And pretty much the same:

"When possible, most of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions; in other words, the same type of wines are tasted against each other, and the producers’ names are not known. The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the grower/producer affects the rating in any manner. I spend three months every year tasting in vineyards. During the other nine months of the year, I devote six- and sometimes seven-day workweeks to tasting and writing. . . 4) I prefer to determine the amount of time allocated for the number of wines I will critique.

The numerical rating given is a guide to what I think of the wine vis-à-vis its peer group. Certainly, wines rated above 85 are good to excellent, and any wine rated 90 or above is outstanding for its particular type. While some would suggest that scoring is not well suited to a beverage that has been romantically extolled for centuries, wine is no different from any other consumer product."

That is from Robert Parker’s Wine Buyer’s Guide, 7th Edition: the Complete, Easy-to-Use Reference on Recent Vintages, Prices and Ratings for More Than 8,000 Wines from All the Major Wine Regions

98

And this from Parker, in 2002…
In reply to your related question, when I am tasting in the cellars, nothing is tasted blind. Yet I frequently do blind tastings. In fact, I can’t think of any year where my tastings with the Syndicate of Vacqueyras and Gigondas have not been blind. Most of the follow-up tastings from bottle held in my office are blind. No tastings of value priced wines are blind. I simply set up the bottles in a meaningful peer group (here the definition of peer group is expanded, although when I am looking for values from Italy, I only taste wines from one region, such as Tuscany or Abruzzi, before moving on to inexpensive offerings from another region of Italy). Blind tastings are primarily important to me as a follow-up procedure to guarantee what I tasted on site, or from barrel, is what is sold to the consumer as well as a confirmation of my palate. Yet the proper evaluation of a wine has nothing to do with blind tasting if the taster only cares about the quality in the bottle, not the pedigree, rarity, or cost of the wine being tasted.
(4.) Because I taste in peer groups, it is impossible to answer to your question, “would a 93-point California Chardonnay be better than a 92-point Pauillac?”. I believe my scoring system is universal based on an absolute standard that I have in my mind for each varietal (actually multiple reference points for multiple styles), and/or geographic regions. Of course, within that standard there are multiple stylistic approaches that one has to recognize. In Châteauneuf du Pape (currently on my mind), there are at least 4-6 major styles. Some might argue (with merit) that there are 80-100 different styles. Obviously Rayas couldn’t be more different from Beaucastel, which couldn’t be more different from Clos des Papes. The answer to your question is that in my mind, a 93-point California Chardonnay would be better than a 92-point grand cru white Burgundy. But you can’t jump to a totally different varietal or region and make such an assumption.
However, the tasting note is far more significant as it tells you everything I feel needs to be known. The California Chardonnay may have a tasting window of 1-3 years, whereas the 92-point white Burgundy may not be ready to drink for 3-4 years, and then might last for 15 or more. If a plus sign (+) is shown, it means I think the wine may be potentially better than I rated it. But, yes, within the varietal or regional peer group, a 93-point wine should be more complex, complete, or with greater hedonistic and intellectual potential than a 92-point wine made from the same varietal.
An absolute standard for all wines is nearly impossible because of the fact that I taste in such well defined peer groups. That said, I am pretty sure that I can effectively place a lighter-weight vintage (like 1997) in the context of my standard for Cabernet, Merlot, etc. based wines, not in the context of the vintage.
I abhor rating in the context of a vintage, a technique that is used apparently by Coates. This was discussed at length in another thread. By the way, I do think it favors the producer vis à vis the consumer. Why? Grading within the context of a vintage would, I assume, produce inflated grades for wines from so-so years. I tend to think that we all have limited budgets, and the ultimate goal is to buy the best wine you can for the amount of money you possess. Unless the 1997 Bordeaux vintage is being dumped at discounts of $10-$15 for classified growths, why would one buy that vintage vis à vis a great year, such as 1998 on the right bank or 1996 on the left bank?
(5.) The wines listed in the Hedonists’ Gazette are clearly indicated to be informal tastings. Those ratings, which I don’t consider to be nearly as accurate as those done under professional conditions, are simply knee-jerk reactions to a wine in a social setting. Thankfully, I am able to turn off my analytical powers when I am at a social event. When I am professionally tasting, I am in a zone with blinders on. But, when I am in a social context, I don’t want to sit down and total up points, analyze the wine, reflect upon it, ponder over it, and come up with a cumulative point score or tasting note. I usually taste it, swallow it (which I do not do when tasting professionally), and quickly make a mental notation of just how good it is. That’s it. The whole process of writing up tasting notes for The Wine Advocate is a far more elaborate, focused, and intense mental exercise. That explains why I am more mentally fatigued than palate fatigued at the end of a tasting day.
To summarize, I think good wine tasters/critics must be open-minded, totally candid about what they taste, independent from the wine trade, and be concise enough as a writer to explain in plain English what they have smelled and tasted. This only serves as a guide. The goal is that any wine rated 90 or above will, hopefully, elicit a wow from buyers, but even more importantly, I hope my enthusiasm gets readers to try wines, sometimes obscure ones, that they normally would not know about.
The most important part in tasting, aside from total honesty and focus, is the wine’s balance. Whether a wine is light, medium, or full-bodied, 100% new oaked, non-oaked, or something in between, everything must be in balance. Acidity, alcohol, and tannin all must be integrated and unobtrusive. As I have said time and time again, I believe that effective wine tasting is part analytical and part hedonistic. If I err in any direction, it is that I am more willing to overlook a minor defect if otherwise the wine is hedonistically thrilling.

99

If I had the time, I could have a field day with much of what he wrote in the two posts above. But I will let all of you determine everything, like why value wines are not tasted blind and how he writes a 93 point Chard from CA is better than a 92 point Chard from Burgundy…thereby implying a 99 point Shiraz is better than a 98 point Hermitage, right?

Oh the fun we will have.

100

Marite might have a problem with that. Besides, she has long known of your affair with Wilma neener