What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


Max Hauser wrote:
> "John LaCour" in ups.com:
> >
> > . . . What I have yet to do is understand the difference in preferences
> > between the critics . . .
> >
> > - How would you describes the differences in preferences of [various
> > critics]
>
> There has been some serious and sophisticated study of this question. One
> survey of the subject that appeared online (five years ago?) was by a
> wine-enthusiast engineer, and used statistical methods to compare some
> popular US critics' rankings of the same wines over several years of thier
> publications. That study identified areas where they coincide closely, and
> others where systematic differences were evident. (I don't have the
> reference handy just now.)
>
> I've heard of at least one other serious study, large and searching,
> conducted privately with considerable resource, but I don't think it was
> published.
>
> Posted in the 1980s on the wine newsgroup were second-hand accounts of the
> pioneering 100-point-scale critic (Parker),both opining that small score
> differences were meaningful, and also giving specific wines score
> differences (very significant, according to the first comment) when he
> tasted it under conditions he did not control. However, Parker stresses
> right up front in his publication the primacy of the consumer's own palate
> in judging wines. (I wonder sometimes if all of his readers notice that
> advice.)
>
> > I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where critics
> > seemed to disagree on the quality of the wine.
>
> Sounds to me like an excellent and provocative basis for a tasting.
>
> Blind tastings are how many good tasters developed their palates over the
> years. The blind format (carefully arranged to maximize the palate's
> sensitivity if possible) is essential (for wine as in other things) to
> exclude distracting or biasing influences. The University of California at
> Davis, near Sacramento is famous for its food-science program, wine being
> one specialty thereof (the famous "Davis" winemaking training, which several
> friends of mine completed, is a Master of Science program in Food Science
> with "E and V" specialization, enology and viticulture). That university
> offers weekend trainings to the public on sensory evaluation. After
> training, students are asked to take blind wine samples (technically matched
> for color and other cues) and sort them, blind, after randomization. (Those
> who can sort the blind samples consistently, a number of times, are then
> recruited as wine judges for agricultural fairs.) The ultimate point of
> wine for most people is to enjoy it with good food and/or company,
> obviously. Tasting wine critically and systematically, on its own, is a
> powerful tool along the way to that. It's how wine is made, for example.
>
> Cheers -- Max