The Auswine Forum

Here is a link to an article by Rolf Binder posted Wednesday, 27th September, 2006, so I apologize if this is old material for some. But it does answer a question that has nagged at many. Does Robert Parker Jr. taste blind?

The crux of the article are these two paragraphs - "..a sommelier from the Oregon Grill entered the room and poured the wines. Not too soon either as at 10.30 Robert Parker entered, greeted us and proceeded to tell amusing stories and anecdotes. With the wines poured in Riedel glasses, in order and with the bottles on the table the tasting commenced.

The wines are not tasted blind and with each wine a sheet of notes is presented giving a summary of blend details and useful data such as the age of the vines."

Now we know!

Mike

KMP wrote:Here is a link to an article by Rolf Binder posted Wednesday, 27th September, 2006, so I apologize if this is old material for some. But it does answer a question that has nagged at many. Does Robert Parker Jr. taste blind?

The crux of the article are these two paragraphs - "..a sommelier from the Oregon Grill entered the room and poured the wines. Not too soon either as at 10.30 Robert Parker entered, greeted us and proceeded to tell amusing stories and anecdotes. With the wines poured in Riedel glasses, in order and with the bottles on the table the tasting commenced.

The wines are not tasted blind and with each wine a sheet of notes is presented giving a summary of blend details and useful data such as the age of the vines."

Now we know!

Mike

Common knowledge around here Mike?

well, at least to me, shouldn't speak for the forum I guess.

Gavin Trott wrote:Common knowledge around here Mike?

well, at least to me, shouldn't speak for the forum I guess.

Gavin

I was aware that the rumors of non-blinded tasting were common knowledge but this is the first time I have seen an actual participant comment (in detail, and in writing) on the format of a Parker tasting. In comments on his bulletin board Parker has recently implied that he tastes blind most of the time except for barrel samples etc; but argues that a professional taster would not be influenced by the bottle label.

His web site still carries the following as the beginning to the description of his Tasting Notes and Ratings. When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known).

Mike

KMP wrote:

Gavin Trott wrote:Common knowledge around here Mike?

well, at least to me, shouldn't speak for the forum I guess.

Gavin

I was aware that the rumors of non-blinded tasting were common knowledge but this is the first time I have seen an actual participant comment (in detail, and in writing) on the format of a Parker tasting. In comments on his bulletin board Parker has recently implied that he tastes blind most of the time except for barrel samples etc; but argues that a professional taster would not be influenced by the bottle label.

His web site still carries the following as the beginning to the description of his Tasting Notes and Ratings. When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known).

Mike

Sorry Mike

my response was a bit 'short'.

Common knowledge to me because I chat with lots of wine makers who have tasted with him.

Not common knowledge everywhere.

Sorry for the 'brusque' sounding post.

rooview wrote: Any professional critics taste blind for their regular reviews?

he does:
Rogov
He is in Israel what parker is in USA.

Anyone who thinks they can honestly and fearlessly evaluate a wine when they know what it is, who made it (especially if that "who" is in attendance), the provenance, the blend, the age of the vines etc. etc. is clearly delusional. The brain just doesn't work that way, because it is too hard. I am not saying their opinions are worthless, as the context may provide useful information, but I would take their evaluations with a grain of salt, as there will be interference even if it is at a subconscious level.

I think it particularly informative that Parker appears to acknowledge this with the blurb about mainly tasting single blind on the site.

Michael McNally wrote:Anyone who thinks they can honestly and fearlessly evaluate a wine when they know what it is, who made it (especially if that "who" is in attendance), the provenance, the blend, the age of the vines etc. etc. is clearly delusional.

Michael,

Then there are a lot of professional reviewers out there that must be delusional.

From my perspective, most of the wines I try are tasted openly and I try and forget preconceived ideas and just analyse what's in the glass.

Often I walk out of a winery thinking that was not as good as
I would have thought they could do, or that was much better than I had thought they could do. That can only come about if you try and analyse what's in the glass and put aside preconceived ideas.

What about Oliver when he stated the 2000 Grange should not have been released? If he was influenced by the label that would not have happened. What about Oliver when he slammed some of the 98 Henschke wines including the HoG? If he was influenced by the label, the chances are that would not have happened.

I would have thought they could do, or that was much better than I had thought they could do. That can only come about if you try and analyse what's in the glass and put aside preconceived ideas.

What about Oliver when he stated the 2000 Grange should not have been released? If he was influenced by the label that would not have happened. What about Oliver when he slammed some of the 98 Henschke wines including the HoG? If he was influenced by the label, the chances are that would not have happened.

Those are good examples of what should happen, but sadly it often doesn't always happen. There are likely just as many examples of critics/tasters getting things like this wrong, because in many instances they have been influenced by what they know is in front of them ie why didn't many of the other critics pick up on 2000 Grange or 98 Henschke - probably they were influenced by what they knew was in front of them.

If you truly believe it's all about 'what's in the glass' then blind tasting eliminates any chance of being affected by prior knowledge, and should be the standard procedure.

Cheers
Rob

Paradox wrote:Those are good examples of what should happen, but sadly it often doesn't always happen.

Rob,

Can't argue with that (unfortunately). I guess that's why someone like Oliver has my respect and some other professionals that regularly miss things do not impress me as much.

On the other hand, doing it openly can have advantages. For example I know that Longwood always opens up stinky but it is a characteristic of the brand and always blows off with vigorous swirling/decanting. If I didn't know the brand, I would spend ages worrying/thinking it may be a problem. Now I still have to think about it, but I can decide in a much quicker time frame.

Part of the problem is the number of wines many of the pros look at in a day and how much time each wine gets in front of the critic. To me, that is a bigger problem.

For example, when Halliday does his book, each wine gets ... what 5 minutes? 4 minutes? 3 minutes? In all honesty I don't know the answer but its its a very small amount of time. Now Halliday is good, but have a look at the length of his TN's now and see how brief they have become. So brief that to me they are not worth much.

Parker; how much time does he spend with each wine? Also not much. Now these guys are pros, and prodigious tasters, but how accurate can you be when you only spend stuff all time on each wine?

tastings of this sort are just pointless.
I can't believe thats accepted by the US wine public.
Perhaps its a great thig that RPJ isn't doing Aussie wines any more.
I mean, hows it work, a minimum 90 points for Barossa reds.
This just goes to show.
Why would anyone bother with someone who points wines with the winemaker present!

It gives the winemaker the chance to
A) Promote his own wines
B)Bag the opposition.....
Tell me it doesn't happen!

For instance
was Sparky at the tasting where he got 99 for his Mollydooker?

Now I like his wines but come on!

Pathetic! Its more pathetic that people believe this stuff!

Smithy

Smithy,
I am with you.
Friend of mine, the PUBLISHED wine writer in my sig,
is about to unveil alot of industry "secrets" and how the things realy done, and that includes the award of dreaded points and pitfalls of tastings which are not blind.

His blog
http://vinofictions.com
is about to have it's first chapter.

I'm happy with them blind tasting initially, but then adding follow up comments when revealed. I value their experience with certain wines and to ignore this would be a shame. The initial blind element though, ensures they give it a good unbiased critical opinion.

Parker will defend his methods vigourously - he's an ex-lawyer It's up to us whether we're bothered

smithy wrote:8) tastings of this sort are just pointless.
I can't believe thats accepted by the US wine public.
Perhaps its a great thig that RPJ isn't doing Aussie wines any more.
I mean, hows it work, a minimum 90 points for Barossa reds.
This just goes to show.
Why would anyone bother with someone who points wines with the winemaker present!

It gives the winemaker the chance to
A) Promote his own wines
B)Bag the opposition.....
Tell me it doesn't happen!

For instance
was Sparky at the tasting where he got 99 for his Mollydooker?

Now I like his wines but come on!

Pathetic! Its more pathetic that people believe this stuff!

Smithy

You sound jaded Smithy?

This sort of response from you is becoming tiresome.

Incidentally, what are your thoughts on James Halliday and Nick Chlebnikowski - compared to, say, RPJ, Campbell Mattinson and Jeremy Oliver? It's rhetorical, so don't feel compelled to respond. The answer is evidently transparent.

Do you really think that the most renowned wine critic/taster in the world (it's not arguable - he IS the most influential) is so fickle to be affected by winemaker's promoting their own product and bagging the opposition? Do you even think this happens? Throw all credibility out the window?

Bah.

Smithy,
I am not tired, dot't get intimidated easily and keep 'em coming. Your opponent just hasn't read
http://www.slate.com/id/2067055
If Emperor has clothes articles from few years back

Hi from Thailand, BTW, Bangkok is lovely this time of the year.

None of them point my wine with me whispering in their ear!

Anyway, he's not doing Aussie wine anymore so the point is mute.

Do I think it makes a difference being ther....Abso.. fn.. lutely!

Smithy

TORB wrote:Then there are a lot of professional reviewers out there that must be delusional.

From my perspective, most of the wines I try are tasted openly and I try and forget preconceived ideas and just analyse what's in the glass.

Often I walk out of a winery thinking that was not as good as
I would have thought they could do, or that was much better than I had thought they could do. That can only come about if you try and analyse what's in the glass and put aside preconceived ideas.

Hi Ric

This wasn't meant as criticism of professional tasters such as your good self, but merely an observation about blind vs open tasting and the prevalence of preconception (which I think you demonstrate in the second bit quoted above). "What I thought they could do" is the preconception you are openly acknowledging. That you can overcome your preconception in this instance demonstrates your professionalism. The argument I am trying to make is that when the taste aligns with the preconception there is less likely to be as thorough an investigation of the actual wine in the glass in front of you.

I am not saying it is feasible, or perhaps even possible, and maybe not even desireable , for a professional such as yourself to taste blind. I just think the idea that open tastings deliver as accurate an assessment of a particular wine as blind tastings is a bit silly. The benefits of the open tasting (ie context, understanding of problems, issues re development) are also worthwhile.

Keep up the good work.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I didn't take what you said personally and knew you were talking in generalities, so no sweat.

Also, for the record, I am not a professional (in that I make no money from wine in any way shape or form) wine critic; just a vewy enthusiastic hobbiest.

Here's JO's take on the blind vs. open issue from his column in The Straits Times from Singapore. On discussing wine show judging, he goes on to say:

"It is equally true that few wine writers would have the luxury of making sure that each and every wine they taste has the opportunity to present its best. This is one reason wine tasting and assessment are not a perfect science.

From my perspective, as a taster who typically works alone, this is a reason I prefer not to taste 'blind'. I taste with the bottle and its label directly in front of me.

That way, if I am a little disappointed by a wine whose label might suggest something better, I can either shake the wine around in the glass a little to replicate some of the effects of breathing, or come back to it at a later stage.

I would quickly add that this approach is of merit only if you are prepared to strongly criticise a wine for being below expectations, as I have done on many an occasion.

In other words, the writer should not be influenced by the presence of the label, but rather be informed as to the nature and style of the wine and how to assess it best.

Having said all that, it is still only too possible to under-estimate a great wine. Sometimes, a wine might be too closed or dumb to truly reveal its potential quality.

And that is when we all make mistakes because at the end of the day, we are judging the wine only as it shows, then and there."

Cheers.