WA: still tasting unblind in California

http://networkedblogs.com/tlr52


I guess somethings never change.

I know this has been discussed in the past, and it is a bit of a ‘dead horse’, but here’s my question - does the Advocate claim that they do taste blind? I’m truly not sure they do, and if they don’t, then I see no problem with this post or the tasting . . . .

If one wants to ‘blast’ Galloni and RMP for this practice, then they may as well blast nearly ALL professional wine reviewers . . . .

Carry on . . .

Not so. At least one publication, the California Grapevine, ONLY tastes blind. I think the same may be true for Conn. Guide. I simply do not trust unblind TNs. Doesn’t matter what they say or don’t say in their standards, it’s a quality factor. In interest of full disclosure, I am on the staff of the Grapevine.

Bob,

As I said, ‘nearly all’ taste non-blind, including some that are greatly respected on this board and others . . .

Cheers.

Ah the old intertwine dead horse. You want notes before you have to buy, so guess what…Antonio has to go to the winery. Get over it. If he had someone arranging big, central blind events, but missed your favorite wine you would bitch about that. Oh, and who is arranging the event…must be on the take.

I dont think tasting blind would change Antonio’s perception of the wine. He seems a true pro. As said above, most of the major publications dont taste blind. I dont see that as a problem with WA, there is no advertising there, I think AG will be straight with his tasting and notes. JMHO.

I guess if you’re tasting 10,000 wines per year, then the logistics of true double-blind tasting would be just staggering.

But I would like to see more retrospectives, and they could certainly be at least single-blind.

[Are Laube’s California restropectives single-blind?]

And if I were a professional critic, then for any given region/vintage report, I would want to gather together samples of all of the wines which I had provisionally rated at about 95pts or higher [when sampled at the winery], and taste them all together one last time, single-blind, under clinical conditions [following their oxidation curves over several days], so as to satisfy myself that my scores were generally correct.

That shouldn’t amount to a whole lot more than about 20 or 30 wines per region/vintage; but below about 95pts, you’d be getting into hundreds [or thousands] of wines to re-taste, and then the logistics of it would start ballooning out of control again.

All of Wine Spectator’s big tastings are single blind. Varietal and region are generally known. Producer is not.

Laube’s retrospectives are, to my knowledge, similarly single blind.

When spectator discuss X wine or Y in many of their blogs, they disclose that the score they gave was non-blind. It’s their “thing.” That said, en primeur and things like that are generally non-blind. To combat that, they do things to try to mimic a more blind tasting. Molesworth has a big blog post on it. I haven’t read it though. They considered it a big enough deal to address it openly, though, for which I give them props.

This is one of the most pathetic and self-serving OP’s in the history of this board. First, that column is very much not about blind tasting, the word “blind” does not even appear in it. Second, it is an interesting article on its own merits and subject. Third, you did not disclose until a later post that you write for another wine publication. A publication that is largely irrelevant on a national level, but could improve its position, and your finances, if you can stir up this one difference that you think puts your publication in a better light. This should really be in Commerce Corner.

BTW Antonio is a friend of mine, but that doesn’t change what you did here.

I’ve repeatedly disclosed my link to the Grapevine in the years I have been posting here. I gain nothing by hoping all newsletters use blind TNs. I repeated it here within 14 minutes of the first post-such a horrible failure.

The article never uses the term blind. Wow! How perceptive of you. What it does is describe an unblind tasting.

He’s a friend of yours? Guess that explains a lot about your anger.

What do you mean by this?

Thanks, Ken. I didn’t realize Bob was pumping his own publication in this post. I appreciate your pointing it out. I didn’t see the reason for all the indignation, but now the thread makes sense.

Maybe you should more openly disclose your affiliation with that publication Bob? Maybe put it in your signature AND repeat it when you post a link to it? This sort of pump and dump is shameless as others have pointed out.

I don’t really see at all that Bob was pumping the SanDiegoGrapevine publication. I saw it as nothing more than pointing out the fallacy of all (or most) of the WA tastings being blind.
In contrast to the publication that he “works” for (he has a day job…any renumeration he may receive from Nick is “chump change”) which is totally blind.
It struck me as just another of Bob’s posts pointing out that the WA has feet of clay. Sorta like one guy who always refers to “certain Monktown attourneys” to indicate he doesn’t worship the pedestal upon which MrParker resides.
The CalifGrapevine is a pretty small publication out of SanDiego, published by NickPonamareff. They do all their tastings blind. From many of the winemakers I’ve talked to, they regard
the Grapevine as one of the best publications around in its coverage of Calif wines. I read it occasionally when I visit a friend and regard it as a very good publication. Nick has a day job and I doubt
the income to the Grapevine even covers their costs. So I just don’t see this as Bob shilling for the publication.
Full disclosure: I have a college friend who serves on the Grapevine tasting panel. I’ve tasted with them 2-3 times over the last 20 yrs. I’ve known Bob casually for that same
20 yrs…back when he had a lot more hair…as did I.
Tom

If I were to “not trust tasting notes done non-blind” then I would have to stop trusting every wine board TN there is, because 99% of wines people try are not done blind. I trust the palates of some reviewers and could care less if they taste blind or not, as long as I find my palate aligns with theirs consistently. I respect that Laube tastes blind, but do not find it essential. I’ve heard stories about RMP picking out ringers blind in public settings, so what good would going blind do? He might be able to figure out the wines anyway.

I read TN’s for information. An amateur TN that clearly expresses the tasters experience is what I want - aromatics, anything relevant/notable about mouthfeel/texture/structure/etc. From a professional, I expect the afore plus vintage + historical perspective. If I am unfamiliar with a region or producer, I want to know not only if the wine is ‘good’ but representative. Is this particular vintage of a bottling generally representative of that bottling over time? For example, most people do not consider 2003 to be a traditional or representative vintage for Burgundy. If I were exploring Burgundy, it would be helpful to know that. But as important as that is, so long as my professional critic is consistent, I can almost forgive any/all other sins.

Thanks Tom. I had been on Parker since the 1980s, in the old Prodigy days, about all of his unblind TNs, with the winemaker at his elbow. I had hoped that there would be change, but alas. They could have all those bottles sent to a neutral location in Santa Rosa and then tasted blind. They chose not. Too bad.

Way to go passive aggressive on the signature line Bob.

Bob

To be completely fair you don’t know that. There were two big collection type tastings. Those may have been blind. Last time i saw Parker do one of those it was blind.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines