Subscribe to Blog via RSS
Search for Events
Recent Blog Articles
- How You Can Contribute to Earthquake Relief in Napa
- On a Vertical Tasting of Grgich-Hills Cabernet Sauvignon Yountville Selection
- A Tale of Two Conferences
- Cats and Dogs Blogging Together
- Getting the Wine Bloggers Conference We Deserve
- New White Wines and Rosés from Rutherford's Day in the Dust
- Examining 2011 Rutherford Cabernet Sauvignon
- 6 More California Rhone Wines to Try at Rhone Rangers
- Lodi Zinfandel Goes Native
- Study: Researchers Discover New Taste
- He Wasn't Talking To You, Mr. Outrage
- 16 North Coast Rhones to Try and a Toothsome #WineChat
- How Many Wines do Critics Taste per Day?
- Howell Mountain Spring Tasting Wrap Up
- Of Tasting Notes and Photographs
- Rhone Rangers Tastings and Rhone-Variety Wines Tasted
- How Critics Taste Wines - Glassware
- More Thoughts on Blind vs. Non-Blind Tasting
- A Great Tasting on Balance
- How Critics Taste Wines - On Blind Tasting
Recent Wines of the Day
- 2010 Moone-Tsai Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley
- 2009 Hawk and Horse Cabernet Sauvignon
- 2010 Skinner Vineyards Estate Mourvedre, El Dorado
- 2012 Masut Estate Vineyard Pinot Noir, Mendocino County
- 2010 Gallica Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley
- 2011 Harney Lane Old Vine Zinfandel Lizzy James Vineyard Lodi
- 2006 Santana Supernatural Rosé by Mumm Napa
- 2011 Jekel Riesling Monterey and 2011 Jekel Pinot Noir Santa Barbara
- 2012 Matthiasson Chardonnay Linda Vista Vineyard Napa Valley
- Review from the Cellar - 2010 Qupé Mourvedre Ibarra-Young Vineyard
- 2012 Tres Sabores Rosé “Ingrid and Julia” Napa Valley
- 2011 Testarossa Pinot Noir Garys’ Vineyard Santa Lucia Highlands
- 2009 Lucia Pinot Noir Garys’ Vineyard Santa Lucia Highlands
- Review: 2009 Buccella Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley
- 2008 Vin Roc Cabernet Sauvignon Atlas Peak Napa Valley
- 2009 Cornerstone Cellars “The Cornerstone” Napa Valley
- 2009 Laetitia Pinot Noir Single Vineyard La Colline Arroyo Grande Valley
- 2010 Lange Twins Chardonnay Estate Grown Clarksburg AVA
- 2012 Borra Vineyards Artist Series Kerner Lodi AVA
- 2010 Wren Hop Pinot Noir “Fire Messenger” Sonoma Coast
NorCal Wine Blog
Rhone Rangers Tastings and Rhone-Variety Wines Tasted
- Tasting Event
- Written by Fred Swan
- Created on Thursday, 20 March 2014 22:12
Spring is my favorite season. The weather is lovely, neither too cool nor too warm. And baseball brings the crack of the bat, aromas of grass, leather and petrichor, along with World Series hopes for my beloved Oakland A’s.
Speaking of Petrichor, they and sixteen other wineries will be pouring fine Rhone variety wines this Sunday in Yountville from 2pm to 4pm](http://www.eventbrite.com/e/rhone-rangers-of-the-north-coast-chapter-grand-tasting-tickets–10229367313). I wrote about last year’s tasting, which was excellent. With wineries such as Ridge Vineyards, Donelan Wines, Two Shepherds, Stark Wine, La Sirena, Cornerstone Cellars and—the list goes on—I’m sure Sunday will delightful too. For $20, the price of a single glass of wine at many restaurants, you can’t beat this Rhone Rangers North Coast Chapter Grand Tasting.
On February 8, there was another North Coast Chapter tasting at Campovida in Jack London Square. It was a fun event, set at the cool little tasting room in Oakland’s revitalizing waterfront warehouse district. The set of wineries was a little different than those that will be in Yountville, but there is a little overlap.
Some of my favorites from the Oakland tasting that you may also find this Sunday include the Highly Recommended:
2011 Stark Wine Viognier Damiano Vineyard Sierra Foothills
A very pretty Viognier, lightly floral with delicate stonefruit and a fine, powdery texture. It’s so good, I bought some bottles to use in my classes on the Sierra Foothills.
2012 Two Shepherds Pastoral Blanc Saralee’s Vineyard, Russian River Valley
Floral with saline minerality and a yummy hint of of banana cream.
2011 Miner Family La Dilgence Marsanne Stagecoach Vineyards, Napa Valley
Full-bodied and finely-grained on the palate with aromas and flavors of marzipan, under-ripe nectarine and vanilla
2011 Arrowood Viognier Saralee’s Vineyard, Russian River Valley
White flowers, barely ripe peach and delicate spice with a full-bodied and fine-grained palate.
2009, 2010 & 2011 Cornerstone Cellars (Stepping Stone) Syrah, Napa Valley
An engaging trio that conveys the beauty and complexity of Syrah while also showing that vintage does make a difference in Napa Valley.
The new Craneway Pavillion is modern, spacious and offers killer views of San Francisco.
Sunday’s Yountville tasting is not the lone Rhone event this Spring though. Range over to Richmond—there are complimentary BART shuttles AND private ferry service—for the 17th Annual Rhone Rangers SF Bay Area Celebration of American Rhones on April 6.
The day starts at 10am with two consecutive seminars, both led by Luke Sykora of Wine & Spirits. A very fine wine writer, Luke is also eloquent in person and quite knowledgeable on California Rhone wines. I look forward to sitting in on both “The Rise of the Rhone Garagiste” and “Grenache, the Most Widely Planted Rhone Wine Grape in the World.”
There will be nearly 100 wineries pouring at the Grand Tasting. The list includes some of the pioneers of California Rhone variety wines, such as Qupé, Tablas Creek Vineyard, Zaca Mesa and Ridge Vineyards. All of California’s important Rhone variety growing regions are represented. So is Southern Oregon which is of emerging importance. I hope to see you there!
How Critics Taste Wines - Glassware
- General Interest
- Written by Fred Swan
- Created on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 08:43
Stemware companies will tell you that the glass a wine is served in can make a big difference it smells and tastes. They’re right. The shape, thickness and micro texture of a glass determines how aromas hit your nose and the wine lands on your tongue. That being the case, stemware can color critics’ impressions of wines too.
This is the second article in my series about the wine tasting methods of prominent wine critics. The first article covered blind tasting. Today’s focus is stemware.
Most stemware designed for tasting high-quality wines is good. There can be significant differences between designs, but those discrepancies are much less significant than when comparing a serious wine glass to a thick-walled ornamental goblet, a mason jar, a plastic cup, or even the normal-looking but clunky glasses used in restaurants without serious wine programs—all of these are awful and no professional critic would use them for critical tasting.
Aside from avoiding the losers above, the most important thing for reviewers is consistency. It’s okay if the glass they use isn’t optimized for the specific variety being tasted. Problems only arise when the same variety of wine is tasted in different types of glasses within a flight or on a number of different tasting dates. Critics try to judge every wine on it’s own, but comparisons to benchmark wines for a variety and region are important. For example, Lisa Perotti-Brown of The Wine Advocate uses the same glass she did when was studying for her Master of Wine test. She has a mental library of many thousands of wines all tasted in the same glass, making those comparisons straightforward.
Within the realm of glass shapes and sizes, one is particularly common among critics: the Riedel Riesling Grand Cru/Zinfandel glass. It is the Swiss Army knife of stemware. In their book, Secrets of the Sommeliers , Rajat Parr and Jordan Mackay wrote, “if they were restricted to only one glass from which to taste all wine for the rest of their lives—red and white—a majority [of sommeliers we polled] named the Riedel Riesling glass as their vessel of choice.”
For reviewers,, the compact design—just a 13oz total capacity—is convenient too. Large flights of wine take up less space on the table leaving plenty of room for a notebook or computer, and you can fit more of them in the dishwasher. With the relatively short stem and lightweight bowl, these glasses are also less likely to tip over or snap at the stem than big red wine glasses.
Among reviewers who use this glass, or a very similar design, for tasting virtually all wines are Ray Isle of Food and Wine, Lisa Perotti-Brown, Jon Bonné of the San Francisco Chronicle, Doug Wilder of Purely Domestic Wine Report and Joe Czerwinski of Wine Enthusiast. Echoing the sommeliers, Jon says it “does the best job of showing the widest range of wines.” It’s even better for sparkling wines than are traditional flutes which, Rajat Parr says, “should be abolished.”
Within that style though, there is variation. Lisa uses the Riedel Sommeliers Zinfandel/Riesling Grand Cru which is ultra-thin, mouth-blown crystal, stands 8 7/8" tall and has a 13 3/8oz bowl. They run $79 a stem. Ray is at the opposite end of the spectrum, sometimes using the stemless and inexpensive Riedel O Riesling/Sauvignon Blanc tumblers . Stemless glasses do make swirling difficult though.
Jon uses the Riedel Vinum Riesling Grand Cru/Zinfandel glass which is half-an-inch shorter and has the slightly smaller bowl. They are mechanically blown, a bit more durable and retail for $59/pair. For home tasting, Jon sometimes uses the Cost Plus Connoisseur Zinfandel glass, which he says is virtually the same as those from Spiegelau (a good brand, now owned by Riedel.) These are a great deal at $36 for a set of six. Doug Wilder prefers >Eisch, whose Superior SensisPlus line of glasses are lead-free.
Joe Czerwinski uses the Riedel Vinum Gourmet glass . He says they have an even shorter stem to reduce breakage. That’s important at a place like Wine Enthusiast’s New York office where there are so many reviewers. Many hundreds of wines may be tasted each week. On that note, Joe adds that “they fit in the top rack of the dishwasher too.” (Riedel, by the way, says on their website that all of their glasses are dishwasher safe.) Wine & Spirits’ San Francisco office uses a glass that’s scaled down even further and has slightly thicker glass for yet more durability.
There are critics who take a different approach though. Among them are Dan Berger of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Virginie Boone of Wine Enthusiast, and I. We change glass styles to match the variety of wine being tasted.
We all use something similar to the Riedel Riesling glass for most white wines. Beyond that, Virginie says she uses “Bordeaux stems when appropriate; Burgundy when appropriate.” Dan Berger and I use an even wider range of glasses.
Dan and I use Burgundy bowls for both Pinot Noir and oaked Chardonnay. He uses Eisch red wine glasses for all other reds. He told me he finds Eisch more break-resistant than Riedel, which supports claims made on Eisch’s website. I use the Riedel Vinum Riesling or Riedel Restaurant Riesling for some reds, particularly Zinfandel, the Syrah glass for Rhone variety reds and the Cabernet Sauvignon glasses for Bordeaux variety reds.
The Riedel Restaurant series of glasses which Virginie and I have are glass rather than crystal. Virginie says, “I can put them in my dishwasher and yet they don’t retain the smell of dishwasher fluid or anything else.”
Why do I use so many different glasses? There are a few reasons.
- I like to give wines their best opportunity to shine and I do think that the shapes make a difference for some varieties.
- I have grown accustomed to using that variety of glasses over many years, so my mental references are consistent.
- Wineries and trade tastings tend to use such glasses, so my home tasting experience and those I have in the field are consistent.
- I like to try to mirror the tasting situation avid consumers might have. If they buy into Riedel’s marketing, that’s going to mean a lot of different glasses.
- I’ve owned the glasses a long time and don’t have breakage issues.
However, the bottom line is that, for reviewing wines or honing your own palate, the most important thing is using the same, clean, good-quality stemware consistently.
- If you only want to deal with one type of glass, that’s fine. Go with the Riedel Riesling style.
- To save money, and perhaps improve durability, consider the Cost Plus Connoisseur version or, if you have access to them, Riedel Restaurant.
- If you want a broader selection, you still only need three types: Riesling/Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignon/Bordeaux and Pinot Noir/Burgundy.
More Thoughts on Blind vs. Non-Blind Tasting
- General Interest
- Written by Fred Swan
- Created on Monday, 17 March 2014 05:00
Another Reason for Tasting Blind
There’s one reason I didn’t mention in my recent article that magazines taste blind: advertising. Wine newsletters, and most blogs, do not accept ads from wineries. Magazines depend on them. This creates considerable opportunity for conflict of interest. The same is true outside the wine industry too, be it music, consumer electronics or automobiles. [Newspapers reviewers don’t always taste blind, but winery ads are an infinitesimal portion of their revenue.]
Magazine publishers talk about “the separation of church and state,” essentially a firewall between the ad and edit sides of most magazines. By and large, this works. There are always advertisers here and there who complain to their ad reps about a bad review, lack of coverage, etc. The sales guys simply say that they don’t have any ability to sway coverage and that ends it. Sometimes a company will pull their ads, but that’s rare.
The potential for influence is there though. The practice of selling a winery ads in the same section in which a positive review or article about that winery appears leads to consumer and industry suspicion. Without blind tasting there would be even more concern about high scores being more likely for big advertisers.
That said, it seems wine reviewers are often held to a different standard than critics in other product segments. Reviews of CDs and concerts aren’t blind. The reviewer always knows who they’re listening too, who the publisher is and the music is received as a free sample, not purchased in a store. Likewise, restaurant reviewers know where they are going, who the chef is and who owns the restaurant. The same is true of reviews for movies, cars, etc.
Surprise Winners in Blind Tastings
Wine and restaurant reviewer Michael Cervin mentioned in a comment on my last article that, in judging situations, he’s sometimes seen people be surprised by the wines to which they’ve given good scores. I’ve noticed this as well. There’s no question that, sometimes, the engineered yumminess of an inexpensive wine wins people over in blind taste tests. Quality in high-volume wines gets better every year.
I’ve also noticed a certain amount of self-selection from wineries when it comes to contests vs. print/online reviews. Wineries which would never submit their product to a newsletter, or even a magazine, will enter into big blind-judging competitions. I can easily think of four different reasons for this.
- Some producers are concerned their wine won’t make the first cut with reviewers.
- It’s more cost effective to pay a small fee and send a few bottles to one contest than it is to ship dozens of individual bottles all over the country.
- Contest results are non-points based. A gold medal is a gold medal, and even bronze sounds better than 84.
- Medals and ribbons look impressive hanging from bottles in a tasting room.
The Difficulty of Judging Typicity in Fully Blind Tastings
I think knowing the variety while tasting is important. Otherwise, blind tastings can occasionally result in inappropriate ratings due to lack of information. If the goal is just to find tasty beverages or the best among unconventional blends, that’s one thing. But, if the wine is varietally labeled, it should be varietally correct to merit a high score. Varietal labels set expectations for consumers. It’s a reviewer’s job to determine whether or not the wine meets those expectations.
This may seem like an edge case, but non-varietally correct wines appear more frequently than you might imagine. Just the other day I was at a group tasting, blind, of Chardonnay from very reputable producers. One of the wines was enjoyable but did not smell at all like Chardonnay. It smelled and tasted of apricot and botrytis. There was a little residual sugar and fairly high acidity. Had we not known what it was supposed to be, we would have all thought it to be a good-quality Riesling.
A Great Tasting on Balance
- Tasting Event
- Written by Fred Swan
- Created on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 07:26
I spent Monday afternoon in Pursuit of Balance. Mission accomplished. I didn’t fall down once! Neither did the wines.
I arrived at the tasting nearly an hour late, but still managed to taste 40+ wines and have a number of interesting conversations. [Trivia: Bluxome is Cockney slang for “zero parking.”] Having dedicated last year’s tasting to Chardonnay, my focus this time was solely Pinot Noir. Despite this, there were so many wines on offer that I missed out on a great many, including about half of those on Jamie Goode’s good list.
The pouring is a little slower at IPOB than at most tastings too. As one winemaker told me, “There are so many people here that I only see twice a year and that I really need to catch up with.” Wine descriptions are also longer than those at most tastings: vineyard designation, precise location, harvest date, fermentation methodology, aging regime and various philosophical discussions are nearly mandatory. Tasters respond with multi-part questions. Wine geeks pouring for wine geeks.
Speaking of which, while I was not able to attend, I heard good things about the seminars (which you can now view online). Ehren Jordan of Failla told me “the side by side tasting of 2013 Calera Mills Vineyard Pinot Noir picked at two different ripeness levels was worth the price of admission by itself.” The resulting differences in alcohol level led to two very different wines.
The wine with higher alcohol was richer, easier to drink now and had the more generous palate. A show of hands indicated it was the favorite of most in attendance. Ehren, however, was captivated by the lighter wine’s exquisite nose, with “laser focus,” and preferred it. He was convinced that, with a couple of years bottle age, it would be just as accessible as the big brother but more interesting.
One of my fellow tasters told me that he found the wine’s this year to be more consistent than last year’s. I agree. I believe the primary reason for this is vintage. There were a lot of 2012s this time and it was a more uniform and less challenging year in the vineyard. That is not to say that the 2011s tasted this year or last were not good. It’s just that vineyard conditions were much more variable.
There was no wine I tasted at In Pursuit of Balance 2014 that I did not rank at least “Highly Recommended.” The wines I list below are those I rated Highly Recommended+ or Very Highly Recommended.
Anthill Farms Winery Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast, 2012
Wild flowers, mixed berries and spice on the nose and palate. Medium+ body gently restrained by acidity and fine-grained tannins.
Anthill Farms Winery “Campbell Ranch Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast 2012
Pretty and feminine with a touch of melancholy: tea, drying rose petals, delicate red fruit and subtle vanilla. Fresh.
Calera “Jensen Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Mt. Harlan 1997
If only I could go back in time and buy a couple of cases upon release. Tea, dried flowers, cedar, stewed cherry and a hint of prune. Expressive, sleek and still energetic.
Ceritas “Costalina” Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast 2012
Sweet red berries, spice and cream. Fresh and long.
Domaine de la Cote “La Cote” Pinot Noir, Sta Rita Hills 2011
Intense, stemmy perfume and tart purple fruit on the nose. The palate is medium+ in body with chalk and very good length. Designed for development, give it three years.
Drew “Valenti Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Mendocino Ridge 2012
A beautiful, intense nose with dark berries and exotic spice. Built to last.
Drew “Balo Vineyards” Pinot Noir, Anderson Valley 2012
A little restrained on the nose of berries and spice. More power on the palate with great acidity and fine-grained grip. Best in a year or more.
Failla “Savoy Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Anderson Valley 2012
A gentle nose of earthy red cherry, spice and forest floor leads into a palate of intensity and finesse with plenty of very fine tannins and excellent length.
Hirsch “Reserve” Estate Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast 2011
This best barrels selection from their San Andreas Fault Vineyard wine shows excellent concentration and length.
Kutch Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast 2012
Just the right amount of stem led to rich and spicy nose, grippy palate. Give it a couple of years in bottle.
Mount Eden Vineyards “Estate Bottled” Pinot Noir, Santa Cruz Mountains 2011
Amazing nose of dark flowers, spice and zesty berries. Captivating.
Mount Eden Vineyards “Estate Bottled” Pinot Noir, Santa Cruz Mountains 2008
Super-intense nose of ripe, lightly sappy red cherries and spice. Great balance, all at the plus end of the spectrum. Lengthy.
Native9 “Rancho Ontiveros” Pinot Noir, Santa Maria Valley 2011
A stunning wine. Super complex and savory aromas and flavors, including forest floor, tea, cedar, incense and more. Very long palate with medium+ body and fine-grained grip.
Red Car “Estate Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Fort Ross-Seaview 2012
Wild flowers, forest spice and burnt caramel on the nose, but the palate is about concentrated, tangy red fruit.
Red Car “Platt Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast 2012
Juicy fruit on the palate but fascinating forest spice and dried wild flowers on the nose.
Red Car “Zephyr Farms Vineyard,” Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast 2011
A fruity wine with dark red cherry, raspberry and spice. Very fresh.
Tyler “Bien Nacido Old Vines” Pinot Noir, Santa Maria Valley 2011
Intensely floral with light, sweet cherry and berry fruit. Very long. Neely “Hidden Block” Pinot Noir, Santa Cruz Mountains 2011
Gorgeous with pretty dark flowers and spice. Fine, grippy tannins.
Neely “Picnic Block” Pinot Noir, Santa Cruz Mountains 2011
What a difference a few yards makes. Shallower soil means the Picnic Block vines struggle more and develop more slowly. The result is more somber and masculine wine than the Hidden Block. Earth, dark spice and dark red fruit with medium+ body.
Wind Gap “Woodruff Vineyard” Pinot Noir, Santa Cruz Mountains 2012
100% whole cluster Pinot, foot-stomped, fermented open-top and then aged in concrete yields an unique, attractive nose of white and black pepper with ripe berry fruit.
How Critics Taste Wines - On Blind Tasting
- General Interest
- Written by Fred Swan
- Created on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 09:10
You’ve read thousands of wine reviews. But what do you know about the way wine critics perform their evaluations? Frankly, even wine writers don’t always know how their fellow reviewers conduct tastings.
This is the first in what will be a short series of articles revealing how several respected wine critics go about their business. My inspiration was a panel discussion at the 2014 Symposium for Professional Wine Writers held last week in Napa Valley. Moderated by Alder Yarrow of Vinography, Ray Isle of Food and Wine magazine and Lisa Perotti-Brown of The Wine Advocate described their processes in substantial detail. Other writers chimed in. I’ve interviewed still others.
Wine Reviewing Makes You Go Blind. Or Not.
There is ongoing debate between wine reviewers on the pros and cons of tasting wines blind. Newsletter reviewers, such as Antonio Galloni, Doug Wilder, and those at the Wine Advocate, do not taste blind. Critics for top wine magazines—Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits, and Wine Enthusiast—do.
In a note to Jameson Fink, Harvey Steiman, who reviews the wines of Australia, Oregon and Washington for Wine Spectator, said, “At Wine Spectator every review in New Releases is the result of a blind tasting. We believe that blind tasting insulates our judgments from any bias that might result from knowing producer or price. It’s the fairest and most objective way to allow every wine to show its true character”
In a recent blog of his own, Steiman suggests that even knowing the stated alcohol level of a wine prior to evaluation can color one’s opinion. “Some high-profile wine writers are suggesting that that they shouldn’t have to taste blind, that it’s unnecessary unless you have an agenda. I would submit that a preference for low-alcohol wines is an agenda. Just how much alcohol is present is not so obvious when you can’t see the label.”
Alcohol isn’t the only bit of information that might sway an opinion. Reviewers could potentially be biased with regard to price point, producer or certain varieties in a particular region. Even bottle weight and label design could sway perception.
Joe Czerwinski, managing editor at Wine Enthusiast where he also reviews wines of Australia, New Zealand and the Rhone, tells me that he knows what countries might be involved in his review tastings due to his beat. When tasting for a particular feature article, he may also know the specific region and varieties. He never knows the price or producer though.
At Wine & Spirits, reviewers have three pieces of information. They know the region, the variety and whether or not the wine costs less than $15. The latter helps them earmark wines for “best buy” designations. Knowing the region and variety lets them judge typicity, eg. does a particular Dry Creek Zinfandel meet expectations as such.
Some reviewers, myself included, often taste blind but don’t do so exclusively. In an email to me, Jon Bonné of the San Francisco Chronicle said, “I’m increasingly of the opinion that blind tasting isn’t really that useful when tasting critically.” The Chronicle’s panel tastings are typically conducted blind but, when tasting on his own, Bonné usually sees what he’s pouring. This is common with solo reviewers. The logistics of managing the blind tasting of a multitude of wines by one’s self makes it highly impractical.
Bonné also poses the question, “Why shouldn’t a critic evaluate a wine the way his or her readers do?” I’m sympathetic to that view and try in other respects, such as selection of glassware, to taste wines the way I think enthusiasts might. Perhaps more importantly, Christophe Hedges of Hedges Family Estate suggested (in that same article by Jameson Fink) that he believes blind tasting removes important context from the evaluation process.
What context matters? Knowing the vintage can help you judge whether a wine is an excellent 2011 or a lean 2009. Region, even vineyard, and variety can indicate typicity. Knowing the producer, and their track record, provides important clues as to the likely aging profile.
Context is, along with practicality, the primary reason given by critics for not tasting blind. At the Symposium, Lisa Perotti-Brown said she tries to ensure her tastings at wineries are under controlled conditions, but she always tastes non-blind and with the winemaker. She asks a lot of questions as she tastes. One of her main goals is to get as much information as possible for her vintage reports.
In a past interview, Antonio Galloni told me, “I generally prefer not to taste blind because the questions readers ask of me require some context.” Reader questions he fields include comparisons of different vintages of a particular wine, wines made by different producers from the same vineyard, differences between vineyard blocks, etc. Therefore, he likes to taste three successive vintages of each wine: the one being reviewed, the preceding vintage and a barrel sample of that upcoming. He, and other reviewers at wineries, will also taste a variety of vineyard designates side-by-side.
As important as context is, the issue of reviewer bias always arises when discussing non-blind tasting. Can critics completely divorce themselves from prejudices of any sort? The mind is a sneaky thing. Objectivity can be easily, and stealthily, clouded. There’s a reason why doctors aren’t (officially) allowed to treat their family and why judges recuse themselves from cases.
Even if one can be totally objective, non-blind tasting creates doubt in the mind of consumers, wineries, etc. For example, going back to that Jameson Fink article one more time, Hedges assumed Wine Spectator didn’t taste blind and that Steiman’s reviews might somehow be biased against them. Neither was true, but the doubt and perception affected Hedges’ own behavior.
On the other hand, blind tasting tempts one to make guesses which may also be a distraction. Unless the tasting is not just blind but double-blind—when the reviewer has no idea whatsoever which wines are in the tasting—there’s a natural tendency to look for hallmarks of the known regions or producers in various bottles. That can lead to false assumptions that skew results more than non-blind tasting would have.
That’s why magazines’ office-based tastings are generally double-blind. They also have enough staff to be able to receive, catalog and pour bottles without involvement from the reviewers. Home-based reviewers can’t do that unless they have a part-time helper. [Reviewers may taste 50 wines per day, six days per week. Setting all that up is very time-consuming and even the most gracious spouse or friend won’t want to spend 20 hours a week doing that over the long term.]
Jon Bonné adds this on blind vs. non-blind, “One significant thing: When I looked at how Robert Parker and the Advocate was tasting, it was clear that they increasingly opted for non-blind tasting, often with the producers themselves. Context seemed to be more important. Over and over again, my conclusion was that non-blind tasting led to better criticism.” Bonné and Wine Advocate are famously at odds with each other. His praise for their methodology therefore speaks well of that system and Bonné’s own objectivity.
In reality, neither tasting method is perfect. What we see is that the method used depends on the practicality of tasting blind, the intended use of the evaluation and the intended audience.
If the critiques will be going into a large compendium of capsule reviews without much context, such as those found at the back of magazines, then blind tasting makes sense. It evens the playing field, creates the perception of fairness and most readers are simply looking for a list of solid wines from which to select a few bottles for purchase anyway.
The newsletters address a different type of buyer. These subscribers may be purchasing in case volumes or higher. They are looking at more expensive wines on average and have more concerns about aging potential, resale value, etc. Such readers are also more likely to be using their wines for formal tastings, perhaps verticals or horizontals. Then, the added context provided by a Galloni or Perotti-Brown educates and provides creates discussion points.
Wine evaluations for inclusion within a regional or producer profile are different still. This is the type of writing Ray Isle typically does for Food & Wine. In this case, readers are primarily interested in the story or learning about the overall topic. Notes on the wines are used almost adjectivally, adding color or supporting a broader point. Tasting non-blind does no harm and is often essential.
The good news is that, regardless of their tasting methodology, the vast majority of professional critics are just that—professional. They do very the best they can in every circumstance to be objective. Personal taste, be it for intense, mouth-filling wines or lithe, high-acid ones, plays a much larger role in the scores than does knowledge of producer, price point or region.
Follow NorCalWine on Twitter for wine news, information on events and more, or friend me on Facebook. This article is original to NorCalWine.com. Copyright 2014. Photo of blindfolded woman by Isarra. All rights reserved.