Wine-tasting Contests are Bullsh!t

[Mal12345]

Wine-tasting: it's junk science | Life and style | The Observer

"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.

The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."

 

[Evee]

They're trolling us all.

 

[Mal12345]

They're trolling us all.

Then [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] is a wine tasting judge?

 

[Evee]

Then [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] is a wine tasting judge?

Are you being provoking?

 

[Mal12345]

Are you being provoking?

I'm evoking the [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]!

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This gives me a great deal of relief.

 

[violett]

I'll be the judge....pass me a glass

 

[highlander]

Wine-tasting: it's junk science | Life and style | The Observer

"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.

The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."

There is a big difference between quality wine and not good wine. A lot of those medals are being awarded to mediocre wines, so I can see how this guy's studies would be accurate. Those "experts" aren't really experts. In my experience, all it means when a wine has those medals on it that the stuff is probably not horrible. It doesn't mean it's good. There are people like Janice Robinson and Robert Parker that publish ratings that are trusted in the industry. It's just the opinion of one person and it's a thing related to personal taste, but their ratings are trusted for a reason. I think some of this depends on what you are in the mood for. One day, I can think a wine is the best one I've ever had. Then I try it two years later and am not as crazy about it. Then, I have it a year again later and think it's really good.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That shits serious man.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This is true of much upper-class cultural expertise.

 

[Mal12345]

There is a big difference between quality wine and not good wine. A lot of those medals are being awarded to mediocre wines, so I can see how this guy's studies would be accurate. Those "experts" aren't really experts. In my experience, all it means when a wine has those medals on it that the stuff is probably not horrible. It doesn't mean it's good. There are people like Janice Robinson and Robert Parker that publish ratings that are trusted in the industry. It's just the opinion of one person and it's a thing related to personal taste, but their ratings are trusted for a reason. I think some of this depends on what you are in the mood for. One day, I can think a wine is the best one I've ever had. Then I try it two years later and am not as crazy about it. Then, I have it a year again later and think it's really good.

Wine tasting depends on a lot of subjective factors that wine judges, with their superior noses in the air, don't care to admit to. Most of those things are mentioned in that rather long article, but the debunking is an ongoing effort. As far as being considered a trusted professional judge, that too is subjective.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm just going to drink Barefoot Riesling like the salt-of-the-earth type that I am.]

 

[highlander]

Wine tasting depends on a lot of subjective factors that wine judges, with their superior noses in the air, don't care to admit to. Most of those things are mentioned in that rather long article, but the debunking is an ongoing effort. As far as being considered a trusted professional judge, that too is subjective.

Of course it is subjective, but if you try a $60 bottle of Caymus side by side with a $20 bottle of Kendall Jackson, you will notice a very big difference and likely think one tastes a lot better than the other. You'll also notice a big difference between that Kendall Jackson and 2 Buck Chuck. One is really good. One is ok. The other one is horrible.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Wine-tasting: it's junk science | Life and style | The Observer

"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.

The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."

Dude, it's all about $$$. Truuf. How Much Money Do Wine Tasters Make? | Chron.com

The majority of stock brokers make more and are about as effective (at beating the market) as throwing darts at a WSJ pinned up on the wall, but people love to buy BS.

P.S. Ya'll are a buncha winos...

 

[Kullervo]

Ah, this reminds me: I remember playing a very simple trick with my grandfather on his brother (who refuses to drink anything except French champagne). All I did was take the Bollinger label off the bottle and put it on a bottle of dirt cheap local champagne, but the old geezer remarked that it was some of the best wine he'd ever tasted. While this is just a personal anecdote, you can find studies on the net that show the placebo effect to be huge with wines. The amount of snobbery in wine tasting has always amused me.

The only time I ever indulge is when i'm flying. If you can quaff ten year vintages and stuff yourself with caviar and quail's eggs when it's all included in your ticket, you may as well...

Speaking of which, I have never really understood the obsession with eggs as a delicacy either. Simple tastes I guess.

 

[Bush]

I knew that wine tastings were bullshit, but I had no idea that there were people who got paid for it.



Not gonna do any good, though. They'll sneer at the science with their pointed noses in the air, scoff at what the swine below them have to say, and walk right back to the French winery, taking hordes of aristocrats with them.

At least, that's how it plays out in my mind.