There's no panel of judges -- just one individual. And the fawning USA network commentators never questioned why decisions were made.
Is this how wine judging looks to the general public?
Moreover, is this how wine judging actually is?
I'm sorry to say that in my experience yes, it is. I looked at a dog show and saw myself. It's nice to be a trusted expert.
But it's a wakeup call to watch an expert I don't know or trust act arbitrarily, and realize that's how wineries submitting wines to anything I judge must feel when they see the results.
Some organizations -- notably, Wine Spectator -- make an effort to explain not only their ratings standards, but their individual ratings. But even Wine Spectator relies on individual judges who wield tremendous, unappealable power. If James Laube doesn't like a wine, it's bad. Period.
Then there are competitions like the California State Fair. You sometimes see a comment from an official about the Best in Show wine, but the dozens of winners in individual categories -- best Chardonnay, etc. -- are presented with no explanation whatsoever.
The one thing I can take away from this moment of reflection is a renewed commitment to vigilance, in never letting my standards drop, as well as to humility.
That, and the fact that the puli got hosed. He was far and away the coolest of the finalists. Damn that judge!
4 comments:
I've occasionally submitted "dogs" to wine critics and sometimes have done better than with my best wines.
Seriously, the dog world is much like the wine world where dogs are not evaluated blind, but come with pedigrees, reputations, professional ("rock star") handlers, relationships with judges,and behind the scenes promotional activities. The results are rarely surprising unless the climate is ripe for a surprise...and then you get a beagle.
I'm sure the rewards for a Westminster winner in stud fees or future litters make it all worthwhile. I can't say that Best of Show at the State Fair brings you any more than a cheap medal that everyone ignores. It isn't because they don't explain their criteria, it's because none of the best wines in the state participate.
Ah yes, the wisdom of the whole - represented in composite scores from readers/users on web sites - is beginning to trump the opinion of individual experts - and for good reason, I say. Who knows if I have the same tastes as the single resto reviewer at the SF Chron? But I DO know that I can go to Yelp.com and find out about a resto from a whole bunch of my peers, and make my own decision based on that. Maybe dogs and wine should follow...oh wait, wine is: nirvino.com, snooth.com, bottlenotes.com...to name just a few.
Courtney is right on the mark. Yelp has been huge; it has made or broken (closed) establishments and it has given the consumer a much better sense of what to expect for their money. Zagat was first, but suffers from being primarily a print publication--it can't stay current. But it too assisted the diner immensely.
Like The Vintners Club, my modest tasting results count on multiple assessments from a range of wine drinkers from novice to geek. This way we arrive at the sweet spot--wines that please more palates that other wines.
http://www.sfwinesociety.com/
Post a Comment