How consistent are Wine Judges?
There has been quite a bit of discussion and controversy in the wine world over this recent study, released by the Journal Of Wine Economics.
Brief synopsis: that wine show judges are not consistent with their findings and medals can be somewhat arbitrary as a result.
I will definitely argue that it is the process at blame probably more than the individual person. Perhaps because I have judged at a few wine shows over the years.
Even seasoned wine palates get confused and fatigued after dozens of wines. There is no doubt that high fruit, high alcohol, and overly oaked wines perform well under these circumstances. They can still pack a punch when the brain and tastebuds are tired.
Experienced judges know this and try to counteract this tendency but sometimes end up overcompensating by giving weak, insipid wines the medals instead.
Let's face it. Wine Shows are marketing opportunities. The wineries use the awarded medals to help sell wine. Judges use the wine show experience to build their wine resumes and therefore their careers.
Are these shows becoming outdated and out of touch as wine consumers and wine professionals alike are increasingly sharing their wine recommendations and reviews online?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wine judgings, as you know from experience, Amy, are fraught with issues. First, is the mania to have as many wines as possible, tasted in very fleeting fashion by a number of judges what are limited because of costs.
But second, and even more of an issue, is the fact that judgings are staffed by amazingly incompetent tasters. I should know, having done many consecutive stints at L.A. County Fair (the best of them, in my opinion), Jerry Mead's New World Wine Competition, Harvest Fairs in Oregon, Sonoma, etc. In my experience, I'm often amazed by how certain judges got into the mix in the first place -- I've seen more than a few that couldn't tell a good or bad wine from a side of a barn.
Don't get me wrong, events like LA County Fair involve mostly judges who are extraordinary tasters of wine. It's that 15%-25% of the rest that I question.
So that's the biggest problem with competition: results are no better than the judges involved, and in the end, the results are reflections of "compromises" and mixed bags of competence.
Yes, of course, a wine show is only as good at it's judges.
But again, I think it comes back to the actual wine show process.
For example, at one show where I judged, the head judge was a very well known winemaker.
I have much respect for this man and his ability to make wine.
However, he had 'cellar palate' and the wines he liked reflected that bias.
He was adamant that we give the double gold to a wine that I knew was substandard. I held my ground and it got some lesser medal but sure enough, after the show, I saw the label and it was a $4.99 retail Chard made with oak chips and cheap grapes.
He was also very good friends with the show's organizer and I was not invited back the next year:)
Small wine shows have lost their credibility nowadays. The local show carries little weight now. The really big ones use multiple tastings to get the judging more coherent. Of course this makes the entry fee much higher, but you always have to pay for quality.
Post a Comment