TN: DCWINOS GJE format tasting – Palate Consistency 15 wines 2 pours

WINE TALK
1

DCWINOS put together the first session of DCWINOS academic tasting series to assess our palate consistency. The genesis of the idea is to be found in winebeserkers ‘Consistency of wine critic reviews - Are they repeatable?’ thread.

In that thread I proposed to organize four to ten sessions with the following themes.

Session 1
Twenty red wines various region single blind double pour in one session. (just simple match)

Session 2
Twenty red wines various region single blind in two sessions. (Placement)

Session 3
Twenty white wines various region single blind double pour in one session. (just simple match)

Session 4
Twenty white wines various region single blind in two sessions. (Placement)
At this point, if the participants have enough interest, we will organize additional sessions.

Session 5
Twenty red wines various region double blind double pour in one session. (just simple match)

Session 7
Twenty red wines various region double blind in two sessions. (Placement)

Session 7
Ten red wines various region single blind one to four pours in one session.

Session 8
Ten red wines various region double blind one to four pours in one session.

Session 9
Fifteen red Bordeauxs single blind double pours in one session. (just simple match)

Session 10
Fifteen red Bordeauxs single blind in two sessions. (Placement)

We tasted 15 wines from various wine growing regions and grape types. Each wine was poured twice in random order and we had to pair them, so total 15 pairs.

In attendance were Greg O, Mark T, Trip B, Rene S, Elliot L, Stephen B and Kevin S.

A formal GJE format tasting once again was held at Bell’s wineshop on M street. All the wines were popped and poured. Even more than ever, our sincere thanks go to Brian Leger who took the charge of this difficult and confusing task of pouring 15 wines twice in random order in Riedel Chiantis per person and recording the wine placement. As stated above, this was a very difficult task but Brian did a perfect job without any mishaps.

Overall impression:

The task of correctly matching 15 pairs were a lot difficult than all of us imagined. Also, I wasn’t clear on the major objective which was just simply paring the wines as some tasters had difficulty as they were also rating and identifying the wines. The fact that this was the most number of wines tasted in the DCWINOS history didn’t help either.

Some of us were working later than expected and the others were attending the Christies Hospices de Beaune tasting at Evermay, a private residence in the heart of Georgetown. This beautiful house is situated at the top of the hill with breathtaking view and perfectly manicured garden waiting for the right owner @39 million dollars!

Side notes, there were close to 20 reds and 4 whites poured from 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 and all showed extremely well, especially the 02 Mazis Chambertin Madame Collignon and surprisingly 1999 and 2005 Beaunes as well as one cuvee of the 05 Meursault Genevrieres and the 07 Bastard. I had a pleasure of meeting Amanda with Christies wine department for the first time and she was quite informative and accommodating. My sincere thanks go to Christies wine department.

By the time when we arrived at Bell’s, it was already around 8 and most of us were starving so we headed to Luigis to grab a bit. Based on our onsite dining experience where we all ordered different pastas, we concluded that the Luigis famous grease pizza is the way to go as all of the pastas are mediocre at best.

The tasting commenced at almost 9 which perhaps made the tasting a bit more challenging. Based on the session, we decided to limit the wines to ten, perhaps have two bottles as some tasters were ran out of wine and starting at 7 PM, our regular time. So now the results

Wine and wine number

2007 Byron Pinot 1 and 30
2005 Trapet Bourgogne rouge 2 and 14
2003 Mitolo “Reiver” 3 and 15
2005 Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin “Mes Cinq terroirs” 4 and 13
2004 Ramey Larkmead Vineyard 5 and 26
2005 Poppiano Chiantic Reserva 6 and 20
2003 Gruaud Larose 7 and 9
2005 Charles Smith "Old Bones” 8 and 12
2006 Aubert Pinot Noir UV Vineyard 10 and 27
1999 Pertimali Livio Sassetti Brunello 11 and 29
2004 Bruno Rocca Barbaresco Rabaja 16 and 17
2005 Chateau Beaucastel CDP 18 and 19
2005 Tour des Termes 21 and 25
2006 Carlisle Zin Rossi Ranch 22 and 24
2007 Delas CDR 23 and 28

Pairing Stats however not correctly guessing the wines

Taster 1 – 8 out of 15
Taster 2 – 4 out of 15
Taster 3 - 5 out of 15
Taster 4 – 3 out of 15
Taster 5 - 15 out of 15
Taster 6 – 6 out of 15
Taster 7 – 4 out of 15

Average – 6.4 out of 15

It was a interesting but very challenging event. The question is will the critics do better than our average.

2

Thank you, Kevin.

This is quite an array of wines, with some variety. If this was done all on one varietal, presumably it would be even more difficult. Still, whomever got 15 of 15 is quite impressive…

I’d love to embarrass myself and do something like this, if only for the educational experience, as I’m sure it would be incredibly challenging.

3

Todd,
This is very true. I think it would be extremely difficult. Also, as we conduct more sessions we will get better at it.

4

I completely agree. Everything in moderation, IMO, drinking wines with friends and doing blind tastings can both be equally enjoyable. Wouldn’t it be interesting, if a critic would participate in such a tasting?

5

Great format . . . and the results are NOT surprising . . .

For another fun experience, try a tasting made up of 6 bottles from the same case of a 10 year old CA Cab or Bordeaux . . . very humbling indeed . . . and shows how much ‘bottle variation’ there truly is in the SAME wine tasted at any single time. . .

Cheers!

6

Larry,
Great idea! We will however just ry 3 bottles two or three pours as a mini session.

7

This would be very interesting, but to be done effectively, only bottles where a clear history of their storage should be entered, and ideally, only bottles that were bought in the same or very similar conditions, i.e. from the winery direct at the time of release.

8

Todd,
Larry said from the same case so that would insure the same provenance.

9

If the goal is a test of the taster… either split a 750 into two 375s or combine two 750 bottles… you could always open two bottles and just taste them non blind to see if they’re showing similar enough for the purpose of the test.

10

Todd-

You got it right - it was embarrassing, educational and incredibly challenging all at once. I will say that it got harder the more I tasted and that bore out in my results having matched the first four correctly but after that only a few more. An added degree of difficulty was that I had previously tasted only 1 of these wines - the Aubert - so there was general unfamilarity that one had to overcome. And, in fact, the Aubert stood out very clear to me as did the Pertimali because it was clearly the older wine of the bunch.

My hats off to Mr. Shin, who is too modest to post his personal results but I will out him, for nailing 15/15!

Greg

11

I was very impressed that you correctly called out Aubert as I called it Byron Pinot.

12

Excellent job Kevin! Am I reading it correctly that the “best” score was 15 correct pairing matches for 30 wines? If so, based on the other scores, taster 5 (You!) has exceptional skill as luck would not generate that disparity. A 2nd round would help confirm.

  • Did color details help separate the wines in to subgroups?

  • Were there a few particular pairs that most/all tasters were able to identify?

  • Were there any particular techniques or processes used by taster 5 that were most helpful?

  • When you say “single blind”, does it mean that all the tasters knew the specific identities of the 15 wines in advance, but not the numbering?

  • If so, any particular reason for not going “double blind”?

Great stuff and thanks for sharing!

RT

13

Was that indeed you, Kevin nailing 15/15? I thought so, but your earlier comment on the Aubert vs Byron threw me. Well done to that member of DC Winos!

One of these days I am going to hold a format tasting with a 750, 1500, and 3000ml. Think that would be fun, too.

14

Richard,

To answer your question,

  • Did color details help separate the wines in to subgroups?

I tried to avoid using color as a factor and I didn’t subgroup the wines per color. The pours were uneven so with more wine, more opaque, slightly confusing. However, I am certain when paring, I looked at the colors at least a few times.

  • Were there a few particular pairs that most/all tasters were able to identify?

2005 Trapet Bourgogne rouge 2 and 14 – 5 correct matches (really bad I thought)
1999 Pertimali Livio Sassetti Brunello 11 and 29 – 5 correct matches
2003 Mitolo “Reiver” 3 and 15 – 4 correct matches
2004 Ramey Larkmead Vineyard 5 and 26 – 4 correct matches
2007 Byron Pinot 1 and 30 – 3 correct matches
2005 Charles Smith "Old Bones” 8 and 12 – 3 correct matches
2006 Aubert Pinot Noir UV Vineyard 10 and 27 – 3 correct matches
2005 Chateau Beaucastel CDP 18 and 19 – 3 correct matches

  • Were there any particular techniques or processes used by taster 5 that were most helpful?

I used the process of elimination ie Luckily I sat at the end had some free space so I started to move the pairs and draw a diagram. Next time I plan to create the wine number rings that can be attached to stems. It would make it less confusing.

  • When you say “single blind”, does it mean that all the tasters knew the specific identities of the 15 wines in advance, but not the numbering?

Yes, we all had the roster but no idea about the numbering.

  • If so, any particular reason for not going “double blind”?

It would have been even more difficult, although I have not tasted most of the wines before, I had a decent idea of the typical and varietal regional expression.

I hope this helps. BTW, I didnt think that I got all and I was pleasantly surprised.

15

For my son’s birthday, I opened a 3L of the 87 Caymus regular cab and all of my guests, including the wine geeks were impressed, great fruit and shows really fresh but with age nice secondary nuance.

16

Thanks Kevin. Although not the overall objective, did you try guessing which pair was which? Did you write any TNs or numeric scores during the process to use as your own references?

I believe practicing at blind tasting helps you get more familiar with the process and certain wine characteristics (not to mention your own limitations). But I wonder if practice really helps with this type of blind testing of the taster? Especially when double blind. Looking forward to round 2!

RT

17

I was able to get 7 out of 15. I gave the scores but I think I left at Bells, like 80s to top 94 I think. I though Mortet, 99pts Syrah, Mitolo was a bit easier. Had hard time between beaucastel and cdr but finally got em right, it is surprising as I am not a big fan of CDP. It really made me to wonder, how good critics palates are.

18

Kevin

Amazing idea, thanks for sharing.

Would love to do this sometime, as well.

19

It surprises me how shocked tasters can be that blind wines don’t openly announce themselves. Determining what a wine is and where it’s from, especially in a red flight like yours, is devilishly hard. I wonder if critics believe they need to know what a wine is (non-blind) to properly review and rate it…or is it that they likely wouldn’t know what it was unless they were told?

RT

20

It is a really interesting topic that merits its own thread. I would assume that being able to identify the grape type is the most basic skill of all. Let’s say a critic has five wines that clearly display the typical characters of the region and the grape variety in front of them. If the critic can’t determine the grape type within an hour, can the critic still be able to inform you the wine’s terroir or rate them say 93 vs 95? I find it interesting that some of us passionately follow a critic or two, yet never question the critics’ palate consistency (actual test, I know alot of folks who would just say his reviews are in line with mine but what if the critic really can taste wine well and just writing based on knowledge sort of b-sing). What if your favorite burgundy critic who believes in terroir can separate burg from Aubert?