The Great Leveller

 

Recently there has been much discussion on the wine forums in relation to the merits of judging wine blind versus critiquing them openly. Whilst there are pros and cons on both sides, this article will objectively look at both sides of the discussion.

 

No matter what side of the argument you're on, no one will argue that when it comes to wine shows, the only way to judge is double-blind. (For those who are not familiar with the term, it means the people judging the wine have absolutely no idea of what they are tasting; however in wine shows, they will know the vintage and the style. Single-blind means the people tasting will know the names and vintages of the wines, but not in which order they will be presented.)

 

When judging wines double-blind, there are no preconceptions about what one may find, with every wine being treated equally, and the results are based totally on what the reviewer finds in the glass. Every wine stands exactly the same chance of showing well, or showing poorly.

 

Recently I attended a tasting of fifty different Shiraz from the 2002 vintage. In terms of removing any preconceived ideas from the reviewers mind, tasting blind is certainly the fairest system. In the case of the recent 2002 Shiraz tasting, which was carried out in single-blind conditions, knowing the names of the some of wines certainly had no impact on me when I was rating the wines. It was difficult enough concentrating on what was in the glass, without having to wonder which wine it may or may not have been. I must admit on a couple of occasions, I wondered if a particular wine being judged was “X” wine, but the thoughts were fleeting and had exactly no impact on my assessment.

 

At this tasting, like many wine tastings and wine shows, the results can be very surprising. Frequently, little-known wines, or labels that have not been all that highly regarded show very well and icon wines do poorly. It’s interesting to note, that many of Australia's top icon wines, wines like Hill of Grace and Grange, as well as many of the up-and-coming cult wines, are not entered in wine shows. This is not necessarily an indictment on the wine show system; there are many reasons for these wines not being entered, but one of the main reasons is these icon wines may be “on a hiding to nothing” by entering, having everything to lose, and nothing to gain. This is not criticism; this is just a fact of life.

 

On the other hand, the wines that do not have these reputations have a lot to gain and very little to lose by entering into blind wine shows. On numerous occasions, at dinners with friends and acquaintances, I have seen masked wines with impeccable credentials, in many cases costing hundreds of dollars a bottle, perform very poorly whilst lesser-known and less expensive wines show extremely well and absolutely blitz the icons.

 

Being critical, or to be more accurate, trying to be critical when you know what you are drinking has both its good and bad points. Firstly, on the down side, the label can have its influence and distort the true perspective of the wine. On a couple of occasions, people whose parentage could be called into question, because undoubtedly their mother was a canine of the female persuasion, have presented “vin ordinaire” that had been decanted into an icon wine bottle. When drinkers are faced with what they think is an icon, when in reality it is very ordinary wine, it is interesting to watch the reaction; even amongst experienced wine drinkers.

 

A certain US wine importer who shall remain nameless, (you are still a bastard Mike O) pulled this stunt on me a few years ago by pouring some very drinkable, high-quality 2002 Riverland (oxymoron) wine into an older Greenock Creek Roennfeldt Road bottle. It completely fooled me for a little while, but eventually my senses were able to overcome the influence of the label and I seriously questioned the quality and the attributes of the wine I was drinking, versus what the label was telling me. There is no doubt, even for experienced wine drinkers, the influence of the label can be profound, but what about its effect on the professional reviewer?

 

Ask any professional reviewer if the label on the bottle has any influence in their judgments and they will all say ”No!”; but is this response true? To some extent it is, because the professional will try their damnedest not to let the label influence their critique, but let's face it, we are all human, and on occasions, despite best intentions, there may be some influence caused by the label.

 

Some professional reviewers state that reviewing wine openly is the only way to go. They maintain that by knowing the history of the wine and how previous vintages have developed, they can predict more accurately how the glass in front of them will progress and this argument is valid.

 

Last May when I was in South Australia, a winery owner, who shall remain nameless (you are still a bastard Roger) placed a blind sample in front of me which turned out to have been a sample of his winemaker’s own brand of wine. I didn't think all that much of the sample because I was assessing it as a normal, standard red wine. It turned out to be an Amarone style Shiraz and because I was not looking at it in context, it is possible that I misjudged the wine.

 

In reality, both blind and open tastings have their place. If you are after a totally unbiased opinion, then blind tasting is the fairest way to achieve it. However there is some validity to the argument presented by those who prefer to critique openly, especially in relation to how the wine will progress.

 

From the casual drinkers’ perspective, it doesn't matter a damn, as long as they enjoy what's in their glass.

.