# Wine-tasting: it's junk science



## richmke (Dec 18, 2014)

I apologize if this has been discussed in the past. I did a quick search, and did not find anything.

An article from June, 2013 says:


> *Wine-tasting: it's junk science*
> 
> _Experiments have shown that people can't tell plonk from grand cru. Now one US winemaker claims that even experts can't judge wine accurately. What's the science behind the taste?_
> 
> ...



I guess: If I like my wine, I can keep it. I still think my $5/bottle of kit wine tastes better than most $30 bottles of commercial wine.


----------



## bkisel (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm not surprised. Don't recall if it was here or elsewhere that I read how the general populace will often prefer the taste of a cheap wine over that of a very much more expensive wine so long as they have no clue as to which is the more expensive wine.

I've also been very pleased with the taste of my kit wines and DB variations.


----------



## wineforfun (Dec 18, 2014)

richmke said:


> I still think my $5/bottle of kit wine tastes better than most $30 bottles of commercial wine.



I am not sure that I personally agree with this quote, speaking of my own wines, but I do agree in general with your post. While I think my kit wines taste very good, I would rate them more along the lines of a $12-$15 bottle. 

However, you are spot on with the judging, critiquing, etc. It is all relative to what said judge likes or prefers. 

I relate wine judging to bodybuilding. Certain judges are attracted to certains "types". 
That is why I preferred powerlifting and strongman..........just me against the weight, no bias involved.


----------



## Tenbears (Dec 18, 2014)

I think the thing of it all is, every person has a different perception of likes and dislikes. It is hard to get someone to describe tastes and feels in general. One may call a wine bitter, while another will refer to the same wine as sour. Add that to the fact that a great many of us have tastes that change from day to day. Compounds that change the chemical makeup of our body also change how we perceive taste. Try this, fill a gallon jug with water in it place 1 TSP sodium Bicarbonate (Baking soda) place it in your refrigerator. Every time you want or need water to drink get it from the jug, do this for a week. Then after a week sit down and enjoy a glass of that favorite wine. Tell us if it is still your favorite. It may not be. 
Why? because the entire Ph of your body has changed, what was mildly acidic before is not strongly acidic. The same applies to anything that changes our system. Medication, food environment, illness, all have an effect on how we perceive taste.


----------



## GaDawg (Dec 18, 2014)

I like my wine...end of story!!!


----------



## BernardSmith (Dec 18, 2014)

Tenbears said:


> I think the thing of it all is, every person has a different perception of likes and dislikes. It is hard to get someone to describe tastes and feels in general. One may call a wine bitter, while another will refer to the same wine as sour. Add that to the fact that a great many of us have tastes that change from day to day. Compounds that change the chemical makeup of our body also change how we perceive taste. Try this, fill a gallon jug with water in it place 1 TSP sodium Bicarbonate (Baking soda) place it in your refrigerator. Every time you want or need water to drink get it from the jug, do this for a week. Then after a week sit down and enjoy a glass of that favorite wine. Tell us if it is still your favorite. It may not be.
> Why? because the entire Ph of your body has changed, what was mildly acidic before is not strongly acidic. The same applies to anything that changes our system. Medication, food environment, illness, all have an effect on how we perceive taste.



I guess what you say is true but I don't think that this explains the issue. Read a paper recently that suggests that if you put red coloring in a white wine and give the wine to folk who know something about wines AND give them the same wine with no coloring and ask the people to give you details of what they tasted they will all tend to describe what they tasted AS IF the "red wine" was really a red wine and they will experience the "red" wine as tasting very different from the white wine. That is not because they don't know what they are talking about or because their bodies all have different acid/alkali balances. Quite simply , our perceptions are not independent of the contexts in which we use our senses. In the same way that magicians can guide you to look at and then see the wrong thing, so contexts can lead other sense organs (smell, taste, touch and so forth) to making sense of the data they provide in predictably wrong ways. We are not machines. We are human beings.


----------



## LittleBearGameFarm (Dec 18, 2014)

I find that surprising. I don't consider myself to have an exquisite palette but I like to think I would know the difference between my Pinot Gris with red coloring (not thinking its a Malbec) and straight up Pinot Gris. I would like to have that experiment unknowingly done to me  I've been to a couple of hypnotists and its amazing what the brain can make a person do and think!


----------



## Tenbears (Dec 18, 2014)

well I do not know about the wine thing, But I had a nephew that did not like red Cool aid. any red Cool aid, not just strawberry, or cherry specifically. I thought that was preposterous so I put blue food coloring in red Cool aid to make it purple. He knew instantly!


----------



## richmke (Dec 18, 2014)

Tenbears said:


> I think the thing of it all is, every person has a different perception of likes and dislikes.



The experiment was on consistency of a judge. The SAME wine given 3 times during the SAME competition had scores that varied by 4 to 10 points by the SAME judge.

Assuming that judges could be consistent in their scores, then you can start standardizing the pallet between judges (taste for specifics, and not overall impression). But, since a judge can't be consistent, then standardizing between judges is meaningless.

To put it another way, if the same judge can't differentiate between Red and Blue, then it is meaningless to try to get 2 different judges to agree on what is Red.


----------



## wineforfun (Dec 18, 2014)

I have to ask those of you that know, but how does one of these competitions run, ie: does each judge take a 1-2oz. sample of wine........say, up to 20-30 samples?
If so, by the time the judge is halfway through judging, their tongue, tastebuds, etc. have to be skewed by the alcohol they have taken in. I know for me, 1/2 - 3/4 through a bottle of wine, it starts to taste different. Not a ton, but enough that I wouldn't want to judge it. At that point of the bottle, whatever imperfections are there, are now gone due to the alcohol kicking in. That cheap Barefoot or Yellowtail doesn't taste so bad, like it may have right out of the gate.


----------



## LittleBearGameFarm (Dec 18, 2014)

I think they have spit cups, especially at the events that have 200+ entrants


----------



## Boatboy24 (Dec 18, 2014)

wineforfun said:


> I have to ask those of you that know, but how does one of these competitions run, ie: does each judge take a 1-2oz. sample of wine........say, up to 20-30 samples?
> If so, by the time the judge is halfway through judging, their tongue, tastebuds, etc. have to be skewed by the alcohol they have taken in. I know for me, 1/2 - 3/4 through a bottle of wine, it starts to taste different. Not a ton, but enough that I wouldn't want to judge it. At that point of the bottle, whatever imperfections are there, are now gone due to the alcohol kicking in. That cheap Barefoot or Yellowtail doesn't taste so bad, like it may have right out of the gate.



They're spitting, so they shouldn't be impaired. However, after tasting that many different things, I know my pallet would be impaired.


----------



## wineforfun (Dec 18, 2014)

So they are just swirling the wine around inside their mouth and then spitting it out? If so, I wouldn't think that would be a very accurate way of tasting. How do you know what the lingering taste is after swallowing? How do you know how it finishes off?


----------



## LittleBearGameFarm (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm guessing the judges palettes are good enough to tell crap from good and even good from great. Their scores weren't varying from a 25 to a 95. I think when you get a lot of wines worthy of recognition, its probably difficult to really narrow it down.

Or, I think next year I'll submit 25 wines and see if I get lucky!


----------



## Rocky (Dec 18, 2014)

wineforfun said:


> So they are just swirling the wine around inside their mouth and then spitting it out? If so, I wouldn't think that would be a very accurate way of tasting. How do you know what the lingering taste is after swallowing? How do you know how it finishes off?



DJ, my understanding is that the taste buds are primarily on our tongue but also on the cheeks, roof of the mouth (soft palate) and at the beginning of the esophagus. There is no additional taste discerned in the throat or beyond so if one swirls the wine around in his or her mouth, covering all of the taste bud locations, spitting it out would not detract except for the slight possibility of the upper esophagus.

My larger problem with "wine tasting" is that I see it as very individual. What tastes good to me may not to someone else and vice versa. My definition of a "good wine" is one that tastes good to me. This is similar to "art critiques" and I have seen some very interesting exposes' of their "expertise."


----------



## richmke (Dec 18, 2014)

Rocky said:


> DJ, my understanding is that the taste buds are primarily on our tongue but also on the cheeks, roof of the mouth (soft palate) and at the beginning of the esophagus. There is no additional taste discerned in the throat or beyond so if one swirls the wine around in his or her mouth, covering all of the taste bud locations, spitting it out would not detract except for the slight possibility of the upper esophagus.



While you are technically true (taste buds can only taste 5 things), what a person perceives as "taste" is mostly smell. Thus, when you have a cold (can't smell), everything tastes bland. Thus all the swirling to get get the aromas to the nose in order to taste it.


----------



## wineforfun (Dec 18, 2014)

Rocky said:


> My larger problem with "wine tasting" is that I see it as very individual. What tastes good to me may not to someone else and vice versa. My definition of a "good wine" is one that tastes good to me. This is similar to "art critiques" and I have seen some very interesting exposes' of their "expertise."



Very much agree.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 18, 2014)

richmke said:


> While you are technically true (taste buds can only taste 5 things), what a person perceives as "taste" is mostly smell. Thus, when you have a cold (can't smell), everything tastes bland. Thus all the swirling to get get the aromas to the nose in order to taste it.



Rich, I know that you are right. I vaguely remember an experiment we did in biology (a couple hundred years ago) where we put different foods in our mouth and held our noses closed and we could not "taste" the food. Thanks for the additional information.


----------



## cmason1957 (Dec 18, 2014)

I think some people have the impression that does the judge like the wine is important. For the wine competition our wine club hosts, we use a 20 point scale. 1 point for this, 2 points for that. Then the score is the sum of the points. I have had many wines I don't really care for that get scored rather high.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Dec 19, 2014)

Rocky said:


> Rich, I know that you are right. I vaguely remember an experiment we did in biology (a couple hundred years ago) where we put different foods in our mouth and held our noses closed and we could not "taste" the food. Thanks for the additional information.



I used to do the same thing as a kid when I had to eat brussel srpouts.


----------



## JohnT (Dec 19, 2014)

Judging wine is no different then judging any other art form. Take paintings, for example. Just what makes a Jackson Pollok worth more than my niece's finger-painting?? Well, it is a number of things.. 

Sure, you can have the purely analytic side of things, but in the end the value is more based on fame than content. It can also be based on the frame (packaging) and who is actually selling it. Then there is also history. A gold bar is valuable, but a gold bar once owned by Cleopatra is worth WAY more. 

From a purely analytic side of things, why would anybody expect that wine would be different than a painting? I am always surprised when people are shocked that judging wine is within the realm of the subjective. Of course it is! It is an art form and (as the old cliché goes) beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wine can be judged differently by different people at different times. 

I like competitions that use the UC Davis scoring method with a panel of several judges. The UC Davis method breaks down the wine into areas of focus. Points are awarded for Clarity, Color, Bouquet, Acidity, Sweetness, Body/Texture, Flavor, Bitterness, Astringency, and overall quality. These individual scores are then added up for the total score of the wine being judged. All of the judge's scores are then averaged into a final score.

This is the method we used during the "Big and Bold" competition. Using this method during the competition worked well and (on average) I feel that the scores were amazingly consistent, but of course wine judging is still subjective and there were some differences, but these differences were off-set (or smoothed) through averaging. 

My suggestion is to look at the competition that you enter. You want to find competitions that focus on the particular wine you produce. Do not, for example, toss your barrel aged cabernet into a state fair competition where the focus is mostly on fruit wines. Also try to look into the background of the judges. Is your wine being judged by some amateur winemaker in New Jersey  or is it being judged by a panel of expert French sommeliers?


----------



## Tenbears (Dec 19, 2014)

What does it matter? If renown judges cannot give the same score or even close to the same score, to the same wine within a few minutes of each sampling in a blind test. Then there is no consistency in ones ability to judge wine regardless of the scoring method.


----------



## JohnT (Dec 19, 2014)

Tenbears said:


> What does it matter? If renown judges cannot give the same score or even close to the same score, to the same wine within a few minutes of each sampling in a blind test. Then there is no consistency in ones ability to judge wine regardless of the scoring method.


 

Again, you are thinking in terms of judging wine objectively. It is subjective and it does not matter that scoring can be different.


----------

