In Reply to: "We can tell flawed from [good or great]." There you have it, folks. posted by clarkjohnsen on March 18, 2006 at 08:27:53:
"But 99.99% of the time wine is tasted fully sighted by the pros, who reach their conclusions dispassionately. "This is absolutely incorrect. I participate in both professional and amateur tastings, at wineries, in analytical settings, during retailer evaluation and selection, as part of quality control, and in educational programs. I do this for a living and on a daily basis. I do this at wineries and institutions around the world. I do this with winemakers, technologists, retailers, critics, and wine educators. After 10 years in this industry, I cannot recall any setting where any of these people would not use blind methods to either evaluate or to confirm impressions.
All Master of Wine and Master Sommelier examinations are done with blind tests. Every last one of them.
The most popular and influential wine critics in the US, The Wine Spectator and The Wine Advocate, do all of their published scoring blind.
I pounded you before about this analogy. It is one that badly weakens your argument. I would think that a bright and articulate guy like you would have found a better one by now.
NB- Sometimes, confusion arises from differing meanings of terms of art. What audiophiles would refer to as "double blind" would just be called "blind" in the wine world. In the wine world, "double blind" has a different meaning, irrelevant to the topic at hand. The separation test I outlined earlier is one we will often use to determine effects of different materials in the wine handling process on the final sensory properties, but it would not be called "double blind" by a wine guy.
So, do you think you could, in the comfort and privacy of your listening room, with the drink or smoke of your choice, your choice of listening material, and all the time you need (months, if you want), be able to separate those two groups of CDs? If so, let's roll.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: a correction - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 00:28:40 03/19/06 (15)
- I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - clarkjohnsen 11:32:19 03/19/06 (14)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - john curl 16:40:18 03/19/06 (7)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Inmate51 08:01:24 04/12/06 (0)
- What's your evidence, John? - real_jj 17:28:30 03/24/06 (0)
- Take a look below and discover how MKJ has weaseled out of his former, undefendable position. Very amusing. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:59:12 03/21/06 (3)
- Now that's just enough! - real_jj 17:31:34 03/24/06 (2)
- He narrowed his claims down to "research" from the broad ones he made earlier. Because he had to! - clarkjohnsen 09:06:36 03/25/06 (1)
- No, Clark, and that is really, really enough - real_jj 10:34:50 03/25/06 (0)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 01:10:11 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 13:30:32 03/19/06 (5)
- This has nothing to do with Larry being an amateur. Nor were my claims false. - clarkjohnsen 09:34:41 03/20/06 (4)
- Re: One point of clarification - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 18:57:32 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: Your claims are false - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 18:17:04 03/20/06 (2)
- Oh, so now it's "wine research". You've narrowed the field of contention dramatically... - clarkjohnsen 07:56:51 03/21/06 (1)
- bullcrap - real_jj 17:34:10 03/24/06 (0)