This week, I’ll be attending a blind tasting of 2009 Northern Rhone wines (from $30 to $250 with a mystery ringer thrown in). When thinking about these style of tastings, I’ve come to the conclusion that blind tasting needs to be done more often by true wine lovers. I approach this more from a psychological standpoint than from a test of mettle or bravado. If you are a believer of cognitive psychology, its application to wine is something that can be very insightful when analyzing our perception biases. For example, I notice that in single-blind tastings, tasters often lean on partial information they glean from the stated lineup and their biases as to what they should be looking for in certain wines. It’s absolutely fascinating how it can reflexively shape our sensory perceptions and understandings of what we drink. For example, if Haut Brion is a a lone bottle of Graves in a single-blind lineup of BDX wines and one comes across a wine with smoky characteristics, does one form a biased positive opinion of the wine as a secondary connection if one comes to believe the smoke is indicative of the bottle being Haut Brion? Does this secondary connection sometimes override one’s ability to objectively judge the wine’s quality versus its origin? How do we separate those two and how do we balance the desire to draw on reservoirs of knowledge from past tastings/readings/expectations with sheer sensory perception? How about if the tasting has Haut Brion and Ch. Brown? Very intriguing to me. I don’t think the answer is to drink everything double-blind. Rather, I think the answer is to do both when we can to challenge how these biases form cognitively so we are aware of them and factor them into our experiential knowledge reservoirs.
I think “blind” has to be defined…in most cases…and limited to one unknown variable to be of any value. I used to think differently, but…think much of truly “blind” tasting is a waste of time. Too much detective work…down the wrong paths most times. I always find a certain degree of guessing a nice entree, but then would rather move to appreciating with knowing at the same time.
That’s just my view. Of course, in your N. Rhone tasting, you already know the vintage and the region/grapes. So, it’s only the producers and appellations within that you don’t know? Is that really “blind”? Maybe…
I think Single blind is an amazingly fun experience, and is always educational. I think knowing what’s in play really hightens your analysis of each wine and your focus. If you know there is a ringer, you’ll be paying attention. Focus and attention helps hone your palate, and having context while you do it helps your sensory memory. Or at least that’s my take. And shame on any of us for refusing to expose ourselves to a bit of embarrassment. Who gives a damn if you get them all wrong. You probably wont the next time, or maybe the time after that…
The biggest problem I have with blind tastings is that too many times they are done with very young wines and it is hard to tell without context which are closed and which are just not that good.
I think they are more interesting with more mature wines.
Howard - I generally agree, but I like doing them young as well as a primer to making insights on buying decisions. I can better discern stylistic differences without rationalizing why an expensive wine is over-oaked or over-extracted etc…
for a tasting like this, I think the blind tasting approach will be quite interesting - particularly given some of our proclivities to write off certain Northern Rhone producers like Guigal or Delas for not really producing anything that’s truly N. Rhone-ish in character.
Should be fun - wish I could make it, but looking forward to hearing the details.
(Maybe I’ll come down for the 2010 version…)
Faryan, I agree with your premises as stated and I also agree with Howard re older wines. Bottom line: take out as much of the subjective info as possible and learn what your palate is perceiving. BTW, its not just our palate, but a combination of senses. Whats significant is the olfactory sense reports to a different area of the brain than the others. Memory engrams are formed and recall is based upon this input which explains why many of us remember scents from early childhood on decades later.
I did an experiment with my wine tasting group many years ago. I poured a 1987 Meridian cabernet into an empty bottle of 85 Ch. Latour at an open tasting of Bordeaux. We had all of the 85 first growths and some Super Seconds. Guess what the winner of the entire evening was? I should say, the Meridian was a pretty good cab, but not of the stature of this Latour which I enjoyed immensely beforehand. Maybe that was subjective too. [I also took an 85` Mouton.]
I find blind tastings, as usually practiced, roughly the equivalent of judging a life’s work by looking at what one did in high school. Nonetheless, I agree that blind tasting is a useful sanity check against our own prejudices.
8 wines, 8 people, 8 hours, would probably be a pretty good format.
I do blind tastings every week. Twelve wines, all poured at once into twelve glasses and you figure out whatever you can. It’s most useful if you have some information, but not all. And it’s most useful if the variables are minimal. Thus, mixing a lot of different grapes and vintages and areas is pretty useless. All 2009 CdPs, that makes more sense. Also interesting is say, the same 6 wines from 2009 and 2010 or something along those lines. Or the same wine done in different oak. Or something similar you want to explore. E.g. a few weeks ago we tasted 1995 wines - 6 Ribera del Dueros and 6 Cote Roties, because I had this theory that they become similar with age.
Just a random sampling of wines that you don’t know is far less useful. And if you’re tasting one at a time, that’s not particularly useful either, because so much is determined by the order. Other than that, I don’t think it matters at all whether the wines are young or old, depending on what you want to learn.
And of course it doesn’t mean you taste ALL of your wine that way. For me, blind tasting is entirely pedagogical. And learning is every bit as much fun and every bit as enjoyable as simply sitting back and having dinner with friends. It’s not a chore and it doesn’t violate some rule about how you’re supposed to enjoy wine. Learning for its own sake is supremely enjoyable. Whether it be something having to do with wine or anything else on earth.
Context is everything. Trade? One’s wine circle? Single vs. double blind is an infinite difference. I am fine with single blind regularly, but double is very, very taxing.
Recently, I carefully curated a double blind first flight at a dinner with friends, knowing that more single blind was coming after. It really challenged everybodys’ palates, we weren’t fatigued, and it was lots of fun. Then we could move on to less strenuous, academic tasting, in context with the food, the friends, the joy of the event.
I agree, Stuart, that truly blind tasting is a MONSTER waste of time, but then so is sex on a Sunday afternoon, right? It can just be fun, stumping a pal who is good with wine, or challenging your regular group to examine some learned behavior. There is a place for targeted use of the gimmick (which it is).
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
Is football better or something?
Context is everything. Trade? One’s wine circle? Single vs. double blind is an infinite difference. I am fine with single blind regularly, but double is very, very taxing.
Recently, I carefully curated a double blind first flight at a dinner with friends, knowing that more single blind was coming after. It really challenged everybodys’ palates, we weren’t fatigued, and it was lots of fun. Then we could move on to less strenuous, academic tasting, in context with the food, the friends, the joy of the event.
I agree, Stuart, that truly blind tasting is a MONSTER waste of time, but then so is sex on a Sunday afternoon, right? It can just be fun, stumping a pal who is good with wine, or challenging your regular group to examine some learned behavior. There is a place for targeted use of the gimmick (which it is).
[Edit] the utility of “single blind” tastings, i.e. where a commonality is disclosed, usually vertical and horizontal tastings, is not to be questioned, in my opinion. They are always instructive.
Waste of “productive time,” my Trustafarian brothers…
Certainly depends on your definition of productivity. I’d like to think some of my very best work is done during that time…although I suppose “work” can be defined many ways.
Double
What can be more productive, and you obviously don’t have my background pegged!
I am struggling with quote stuff and timing and the Intertubes. Oh well. I stand willing to defend some of my statements.
Well said. Exploration and being surprised represent a large part of why I enjoy wine.
I agree that this is well-said, and,um, blue-state anyone…?
Can’t agree with the “always”. Too many variables, including the interest/knowledge of the tasters. People who know not much and want to learn are, IMO, unlikely to learn anything by “blind” tasting of any kind. In some situations, where everyone has plenty of time, interest and knowledge, keeping some things “blind” can be “instructive”.
I’ve gotten less and less interested in “blind” tastings as the years have gone by. Used to attend them once a month or so…but…thought I and my friends really “learned” very little, especially from comparing guesses. It invokes lots of variables, including genetic sensitivities.
I also think the fewer wines involved, the better a blind tasting is likely to be actually “instructive”. Does the guessing really add anything? I guess it can. Sometimes I read notes here of massive tastings, even with sub-groups, and the writer is mainly focused on his/her guessing acuity. That, to me, is somewhat of a distraction.
Again, to a degree, “blind” can be “instructive” IMO, but the scenario needs to be carefully contrived to result in that.
Have no idea what you’re talking about on the Sunday afternoon stuff. I am not a church goer. But, spontaneity is best in many parts of life , including the subjects on your post. Rigidity is almost always a negative. Need to think outside the box spring sometimes.