This past Tuesday the Anuva team sat for an in-company tasting. We set the table with all the essential weaponry; water, glasses, crackers, note pads, pens and a giant spit bucket. We usually do this about once a month and have between 20 and 40 wines so at 21, this was a small tasting.
After uncorking 21 bottles our intern, Helen concealed their identities in numbered paper bags. Why? You have to taste blind. The only way to really judge the wine itself is to not know where it comes from and not see the bottle. Labels have an impact, appellations have an impact, varietal has an impact. I find it offensive that neither Wine Spectator nor Robert Parker and his team taste all of their wines blind. What are they afraid of?
If wine professionals are true to their job, they will only taste blind and admit each palate is unique, variable depending on immediate influences (like what you ate, if you smoke, etc.) and is highly subjective. This would develop a trend toward truth in wine and not marketing to sell wine only.
We poured in sets of 5 sniffing, scribbling, sipping, swishing, spitting, smiling, sneering. We wait until the end of each round we exchange results. Ratings are based on bouquet, taste, mouth feel and over all expressiveness.
Many of the wines are clear and definite “no’s”. Descriptions are frank and honest. I like to be creative with my notes for example “It smells like bleach and tastes like an old boot with rotten vegetables, no”
With quantification in mind we rate each wine on a 100 point scale. All tastings are done blind allowing the best wines speak for themselves as we weed out the inferior stock.
Consistency is the real goal. For one, accord between tasters “Do you concure?” sometimes tastings include two bottles of the same wine (that’s right we hated your rose, twice!) Blind tastings will even revisit wines from a previous tasting to ensure that the reactions are the same. For example two of the top rated wines from Tuesday’s tasting had also been rated highly in a previous tasting, Callejon Del Crimen Sangiovese 2006 & Los Quimiles 2006 Premium Cabarnet Franc from Vinos de los Andes.
Of the 21 we kept the top 12 to revisit the next day. Some wines can do a 180 with one day of air. And some simply are better down the drain.
Thomas Matthews | 13-Apr-09 at 11:12 am | Permalink
I applaud your belief in blind tasting as they best way to obtain an unbiased view of a wine.
I would like to correct an error in your piece. Wine Spectator does in fact review all new releases in blind tastings, and that the vast majority of our tasting notes result from blind tastings. If a review is not based on a blind tasting, that fact is always disclosed in the tasting note.
Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator
Daniel | 13-Apr-09 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification Thomas and I’m so glad that you are paying attention to all of our posts here at Anuva. Cheers!
Steven Mirassou | 19-Apr-09 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
Mr. Matthews:
So I take this to mean that your reviewer knows only the basic information…variety and vintage?
Is the appellation unknown?
Thomas Matthews | 20-Apr-09 at 11:17 am | Permalink
Steve,
The tasting sheet includes the vintage and the appellation and/or varietal, as appropriate. A Sancerre is listed as a Sancerre; a Sauvignon Blanc from Napa Valley is listed as a Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc.
The decision about how much information to disclose is a debatable one. Wine is supposed to reflect its origins (grape, place, vintage), so it makes sense to disclose those as a way of making an informed judgment. We believe that producer and price are not relevant to typicity and can influence judgment, so we withhold that information.
Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator