Can you entirely eliminate subjective factors in wine tasting?
If you’re one person, No. A single taster will always be tasting within the parameters of his limitations, e.g. he may be more or less sensitive to TCA than other tasters. He may wince at the smell of pyrazines, or find the heat from alcohol unbearable, or feel that a totally dry wine is too severe.
But how about a group? Can the dynamics of consensus solve the subjectivity dilemma?
Objective tasting has been the unicorn of the wine industry for centuries. A long time ago, it was assumed that an epicure, like Thomas Jefferson, was correct in anything he said about wine. Nowadays, in our era of mistrust of authorities, we no longer take it for granted that anyone can be the supreme expert. “Galloni might not like it, but I do,” the reasoning goes—as it should.
But sometimes, it’s important to understand exactly what you’re dealing with in a wine. Is it really balanced? Is it really dry? Is it reduced? What do we mean by “creamy” or “rich” or “spicy”? These are the kinds of things two tasters can easily disagree about, sometimes violently; but if you have a group, you can more easily arrive at a consensus. Or so the theory goes.
My own approach to these matters has been based on my experience as a wine critic. I’ve said for years that, if you’re a consumer interested in wine, then find an expert you trust, and stick with him. (And it doesn’t have to be a critic. It can be a merchant, or your sister-in-law.) In other words, find someone whose palate you relate to, and trust.
But there is something to be said for a group consensus. We’re all part of a group: the human race, and moreover, of a sub-group within it: American wine consumers. Group influence, AKA peer pressure, can be strong, especially when people are as unsure of wine as most people are. And—just to underline my point—everyone is unsure of his or her palate: not just ordinary consumers, but critics, winemakers, even, dare I say it, Master Sommeliers. Everyone seeks refuge within the safe harbor of a peer group. It’s the herd instinct that makes, for example, impalas cluster together when lions stalk the perimeter.
Whether you go with group consensus or individual reviews, is up to you. It depends on your purpose. But I do think that, if you go with the group, you should make sure your group knows what the heck they’re talking about. These crowd-sourced reviews, where anyone can weigh in no matter what their professional qualifications, are questionable to me. Does that sound anti-democratic? Pro-elitist? I guess it does. But I do think reviewers need to bring credentials to the table.
* * *
While I am affiliated with Jackson Family Wines, the postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies or opinions of Jackson Family Wines.
“Can you entirely eliminate subjective factors in wine tasting?”
Maybe not. But for starters, consider submitting to a controlled tasting organized by statistician-turned-wine maker Robert Hodgson (whose research on wine judging competitions has appeared in the Journal of Wine Economics).
A suggestion made by Mike Dunne back in 2009 [*]:
“Might be interesting if you [Charles Olken] and other similarly constructed [wine judging] panels were to retain Robert Hodgson to test the consistency and endurance of the judges. Maybe Marvin Shanken could be persuaded to underwrite such an expanded study.”
[* http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/11/18/joe-roberts-is-right-about-bullsht-unreliable-wine-judge-studies/ ]
We’re big fans of looking at our customer reviews – which is why we’ve collected millions of ratings and reviews on the site. But we always try to remember that (1) data is only a partial picture and you have to intelligently interpret data and (2) the reviews are still subjective -there’s just more of them (as you say!)
Data is data. Opinions are subjective. But I’d almost always rather make a decision based on 1 million data points than 12 data points. 🙂
Not to over-promote, but one of our winemakers wrote an interesting guest post about how he interpreted his thousands of customer ratings to adapt his vineyards and wines to better suit his customers. http://news.nakedwines.com/2015/11/18/do-winemakers-use-customer-feedback-to-improve-their-wines/
Please see Betteridge’s Law of Headlines.
“And—just to underline my point—everyone is unsure of his or her palate: not just ordinary consumers, but critics, winemakers, even, dare I say it, Master Sommeliers. Everyone seeks refuge within the safe harbor of a peer group.”
I demur.
Robert Parker takea a lot of pot shots from his detractors.
But those with short memories forget his singularly standing up to the British wine press and “calling them out” for their chummy relations with those whose products they reviewed. (British wine reviews in some quarters likened to “wine payola.”)
And Parker championing the cause of the 1982 Bordeaux when the British wine press dismissed the vintage.
It took courage to go it alone, confident in his convictions. And the wined press ultimate pivoted in his direction.
Erratum:
“It took courage to go it alone, confident in his convictions. And the wine press ultimately pivoted in his direction.”