Questions of Taste - the book

Reading Questions of Taste, edited by Barry Smith.

Jamie Good added an interesting chapter which supports my regular argument on this Forum about the invalidity of blind tasting – and partial waste of good wine, if good wine is being blind tasted. I think enough is being learned about this that few people will argue the other side for long.

First, different people, and genetically different groups of people, have vastly different sets of taste and smell receptors. So no two people receive the same impulses from a particular glass of wine. Taste and smell impulses get converted to electrical impulses which form into experiences of perception. But before they form a wine experience, many of the impulses are simply tossed out by the brain, because there are zillions of them and the brain doesn’t need zillions of impulses to make a decision about something, like whether to swallow it or spit out what is being tasted.

Added to this electrical wine experience are impulses from other areas of input besides taste and smell, such and memories, knowledge and colors. That’s how experienced tasters can be “fooled” into describing a fine red wine when given a white wine colored red. And how a wine can actually (not mistakenly) taste much better if you know it has a label representing a fine wine.

MRI tests show that knowledge about a wine being drunk brings additional areas of the brain into the analysis, so that the experience is much more robust. The experience is much different.

It’s a good chapter to read for any obscurantist who still holds out to thinking that wine has some intrinsic quality that can be perceived just as readily blind as with more knowledge of it. However, a case can be made for a certain wine having a finer intrinsic quality over another over time. Even though each time the wine is tasted, hugely different sets of impulses are being sent to receiving brains and hugely different sets of other inputs modify it every time, over time one type or brand of wine will come out better than another. So you could say that it was intrinsically a better wine.

Jamie Good added in interesting chapter which supports my regular argument on this Forum about the invalidity of blind tasting – and partial waste of good wine, if good wine is being blind tasted. I think enough is being learned about this that few people will argue the other side for long.

I disagree with you about the invalidity (that's a hard word to say) of blind tasting. It really depends on the reasons you are doing the blind tasting in the first place.

First, different people, and genetically different groups of people, have vastly different sets of taste and smell receptors... memories, knowledge and colors

Yes, and given all that, what's amazing is the actual level of agreement between tasters (at least those with a reasonably similar degree of experience, taste, etc). I don't think this evidence necessarily means that blind tasting is worthless. As Sue points out, it depends why you're doing a blind tasting anyway.

BTW, if you liked Questions of Taste you might like Wine & Philosophy (Ed. Fritz Allhoff, Blackwell Publishing).

I agree that knowing that you're drinking something very special adds a dimension of pleasure to the experience and should not be denied (the first time of two times that I was lucky enough to drink a Romanée-Conti, it was a 1967, slightly maderized, and I managed to somehow make that into a plus; the second was a more recent vintage, relatively shut down, and knowing it was a DRC no longer helped). HOWEVER, if you want to compare two or more wines as objectively as possible, even if it's just for your own consumption (and cannot be extended to anyone else), excluding the myth surrounding that wine helps that objectivity. While part of the experience of drinking, say, Petrus is knowing that you're drinking Petrus, imagine comparing a Petrus to anything else without concealing that fact...

MRI tests show that knowledge about a wine being drunk brings additional areas of the brain into the analysis, so that the experience is much more robust. The experience is much different.

If the taster is lied to about the price of the the same wine he will perceive it as a better or worse according to the price - as has been "shown" by a recent widely reported MRI experiment. I'd expect a similar effect if the same wine is presented with well-respected and lesser-known labels. But I would not call that a "more robust" experience.

If I'm drinking a decent bottle, I'd like to know what it is. Anything to increase my pleasure! But if I want to evaluate a wine in an unpressured environment, surely blind is the way to go.

Maybe it's just me, but if I'm tasting a different wines in quick succession, and I want to LEARN about the wines, I find it easier to do it non-blind. IOW it is more difficult to associate the experience with the wine if the reveal comes after the tasting. This is especially the case if they are wines I am unfamiliar with.

I disagree with you about the invalidity (that's a hard word to say) of blind tasting. It really depends on the reasons you are doing the blind tasting in the first place.

Sue, I agree to the extent of "to each his own." An extreme case would be replacing Gaitor Aid with Mouton at a football game. Who is to say someone should not do it? (I know the alcohol isn't as good for dehydration.) And if you are conducting a scientific comparison of what wines say to you blind, that is indeed valid. I would personally not do it with expensive wine because I am not rich enough to miss the most I can get with my money. That's what I am trying to say, I guess.

Still have one or two chapters to go. So far, none of the other chapters are interesting to me. Philosophy of wine doesn't seem relevant for the most part, after having learned a little about science.

A few thoughts:

As always, there is no absolute. I drink 95% of my wine with full knowledge, but quite also enjoy blind tastings. The enjoyment can be in a bit different form, but I enjoy the challenge to the senses and the learning experience.

Certainly one should never make absolute judgements about a wine based on blind tasting - I don't think one wine is neccessarily "better" than another based on which shows better in a blind setting (especially if the wines are not totally mature). But a person with some experience can
try and meld the impressions that one had based solely on what was "in the glass" with the data that one recieves at unveiling. A blind tasting of "closed with immense tannins" would bother me less if wine is revealed to be a 7 year old Montrose than if it was a 20 year old St Emilion.

Steve makes an excellent point that blind tasting is particularly unsuited to the quick tasting of dozens of wines format. I personally need some time to try and analyze what I'm tasting.

I especially enjoy blind horizontal tastings of mature wines. While I understand the role of context in wine, it's hard to argue that a 1st is
actually better than a 5th or CB if tasted side by side at age 30 and found lagging.

One of my tasting groups does totally double blind. It's a great way to hone your analytical skills, and while I am nowhere near as talented as some (most?) members, I learn a lot. I don't think tasting blind robs me of enjoyment. . The 75 l'Evangile, 96 Dujac Clos de la Roche, 2000 Raveneau Blanchots,96 Rousseau Clos St. Jacques, 71 Haut Brion,70 Ducru, 77 Heitz Martha's have all managed to wow me blind, even without the appreciation (at the time) of their pedigree. To me, it was informative that a 1990 Gaja, a couple of Granges, and a '79 Lafleur didn't impress. Good hint of what I might like.

I get different types of enjoyment from cooking a good meal than from eating one. I get equal but different enjoyment from walking my dog and hiking in the Rockies. I enjoy listening to the Clash and the Cleveland Quartet, but in different ways. I enjoy tasting blind, and knowing what I'm drinking.

Certainly one should never make absolute judgements about a wine based on blind tasting - I don't think one wine is neccessarily "better" than another based on which shows better in a blind setting (especially if the wines are not totally mature). But a person with some experience can
try and meld the impressions that one had based solely on what was "in the glass" with the data that one recieves at unveiling. A blind tasting of "closed with immense tannins" would bother me less if wine is revealed to be a 7 year old Montrose than if it was a 20 year old St Emilion.

Exactly, Dale. Blind tasting has its role, which is largely an analytical one when it's not being performed as a parlor game. Even then, there are two kinds: the technical tasting, in which the tasters are looking for technical faults; and the blind tasting where people are simply describing wines in the absence of any cues about their identity. What would have happened at the Judgment of Paris had it not been a blind tasting?

This point has been discussed ad nauseam, here and elsewhere, but to me the big problem is when blind tasting is employed in the service of some normative scale that seeks to assign some measure of "quality" to wine. As Covert points out, tasting is a subjective experience, subject to all the different environmental and biological variables. Trying to quantify such an experience through the use of any scalar variable is inherently flawed, failing as it does to take into account the variables of perception, environment and time.

I almost never taste wine blind any more, preferring to enjoy wine with food, but I don't dismiss its value under the right circumstances.

Mark Lipton

I almost never taste wine blind any more, preferring to enjoy wine with food

One quibble- they're not mutually exclusive! Our SOBER group tastes blind, with dinner. Host knows what wines are, and plans accordingly. People put as much care into food as the wines. Otherwise I'd have never experienced DRC RSV and Mugnier Musigny with squash soup with duck confit- yum (thanks Jacques!)! We had great fun when it was my last turn to host matching a clam/udon/lemongrass dish with 3 SB wines (Dagueneau Pur Sang, Courier, LavilleHB). If hosting, I probably wouldn't get so obvious that it would give too much of a hint (no beef in Barolo with the Piedmont flight).

[David M. Bueker]

Just piling on - the value of blind tasting all depends on what you are trying to get out of it. Personally I don't think my tasting groups should taste blind as we're almost never basing buying decisionsor (semi) professional evaluations on the outcome. I would prefer that we just enjoy the wines, though a few of the members have such strong stylistic biases (including me) that it would be hard for some folks to enjoy the evening. If I saw 8 bottles of Australian Shiraz my inate curiosity might be overcome by my gag reflex.

But there are times when blind tasting is totally valid. Thor served a blind wine Saturday night. It was immediately clear what the grape variety was (Gewurz), but he wanted an honest assessment of the quality of the wine and its potential. Both Laura and I said that while it had some Gewurztramienr typicity we thought the wine was thin, watery and no better than an average California Gewurz (though we both suspected New Zealand - it was Thor pouring after all). It turned out to be a New Zealand Gewurz and a horrid value as it was rather pricey (more than the Trimbach Gewurztraminer Cuvee Seigneurs de Ribeaupierre). There were a few biases that the brown bag kept at bay: my distrust of New Zealand white wines that do not say Sauvignon Blanc on the label, fear of it being Alsacian wine made by folks with some personal value to Thor & Theresa, and knowledge of the price. I like to think I would still have said it was mediocre even without the brown bag, but who knows...

... Thor served a blind wine Saturday night. It was immediately clear what the grape variety was (Gewurz) .... Both Laura and I said that while it had some Gewurztraminer typicity we thought the wine was thin, watery and no better than an average California Gewurz (though we both suspected New Zealand - it was Thor pouring after all) ....

LOL. So what was the wine?

[David M. Bueker]

... Thor served a blind wine Saturday night. It was immediately clear what the grape variety was (Gewurz) .... Both Laura and I said that while it had some Gewurztraminer typicity we thought the wine was thin, watery and no better than an average California Gewurz (though we both suspected New Zealand - it was Thor pouring after all) ....

LOL. So what was the wine?

I'll have to check. I didn't write it down, and we...well...we tend to drink a lot.

[David M. Bueker]

The mystery Gewurztraminer: Nobilo "Vinoptima" 2003 Gewurztraminer "Reserve"

The mystery Gewurztraminer: Nobilo "Vinoptima" 2003 Gewurztraminer "Reserve"

Mmmmm, what were the others' reactions, particularly Thor (although if he was pouring he would have known what the wine was).

[David M. Bueker]

We were all rather disappointed in the wine, finding it thin and watery.

While part of the experience of drinking, say, Petrus is knowing that you're drinking Petrus, imagine comparing a Petrus to anything else without concealing that fact...

Oswaldo, in 40+ years of drinking wine, I have never had the pleasure of Petrus. I am not sure if you are familiar with US singer and actors, but a lady named Peggy Lee probably summed up Petrus *for me) with her song "Is that all there is?" I would likely be surprised and dismayed if I were to drink Petrus knowing what I was drinking, and what it cost.
Then again........?

[David M. Bueker]

Bob - I've had Petrus once. It was mind boggling. Luckily for me the bottle cost the host $27. He bought it in 1973. It was all that and a bag of chips.

Bob - I've had Petrus once. It was mind boggling. Luckily for me the bottle cost the host $27. He bought it in 1973. It was all that and a bag of chips.

David, I surely would never "bad Mouth" Petrus, but what if? If it was say no better than a Beringer Howell Mtn Bancroft Ranch merlot, and it cost me $600 a bottle for say a 2003, then what I said. I expect that If I were to buy a 2003 Petrus, I would either commit infanticide, or not survive long enough to avoid committing infanticide.

[David M. Bueker]

From my experience, the being underwhelmed situation can be true of any of the reportedly "game changing" wines (e.g. DRC, d'Yquem, Petrus...). I've had d'Yquem blind and non-blind & never been thrilled, even by great vintages well aged. I think you're hard wired to either enjoy the wine or not. I'm hard wired to enjoy Chambertin but not d'Yquem (though I love La Tour Blanche).

From my experience, the being underwhelmed situation can be true of any of the reportedly "game changing" wines (e.g. DRC, d'Yquem, Petrus...). I've had d'Yquem blind and non-blind & never been thrilled, even by great vintages well aged. I think you're hard wired to either enjoy the wine or not. I'm hard wired to enjoy Chambertin but not d'Yquem (though I love La Tour Blanche).

I know what you mean, David. On one occasion, I was asked to give a small introduction to the '90 Ch. Margaux that was being poured at an organized tasting (ca. '99 or so). Certainly, we were drinking it way too young, but still I was left severely underwhelmed by it. A Peggy Lee moment, indeed! I've felt similarly about the few tastes I've had of Grange and any of Gaja's wines.

Mark Lipton