I keep noticing that people argue that no one is tasting blind. WS is founded on the principal that all published scores are tasted blind unless otherwise noted. And blind doesn’t mean at the winery. It means in a NY or CA office tasting brown bagged wines of X or Y variet(y/al). That’s why I compared Miller’s scores to WS…non-blind v. actually blind blind.
While I’m sure Jay Miller has a good palate, just like you, me, and many people on this board, I want to see if his “good palate” is subject to the subtle power of tasting wines non-blind.
I picked Jay Miller for what I considered fairly obvious reasons…he is surrounded by scandal right now, and faces allegations that he was getting benefits from Spanish DOs and wineries. There is also a significant body of articles addressing his propensity for tasting in the presence of wine reps from the regions he is tasting, giving them updates as he tastes, and listening to significant information about the wines, regions, and wineries he is tasting through…as he is tasting through them.
Ever been to a wine tasting where one person who is a “wine guy” says, “the volcanic soil contributes to that nice smoky flavor. Do you get that?” Whether it’s total BS or not, the guy two seats over goes, “oh yeah, nice smoke notes for sure.” I want to see if that type of thing is a factor. Showing a lack of score variability can suggest that to be the case.
Obviously, the sample set will have to be limited (I have a day job that I should be working on right this second) and the test inherently imperfect. Still, I think it can show interesting trends in wine tasting, scoring, score inflation, and the (potential) decrease in variability caused by scoring wines non-blind.
We’ll see though. I’ve gone through about 20 wines so far with fairly surprising results (especially in Oregon, where Miller’s tastes for pinot noir seem to differ from his tastes for other types of wine, i.e., DS Evanstad getting panned consistently).