A poster at HF noticed this interesting article on wine critics' scoring abilities.

Why Wine Ratings Are Badly Flawed - WSJ.com

That mirrors my experience, but I do know that tasting it blind, a well regarded pinot given to me by Ken at canjam was the only wine my wife has ever liked

I'll see how the two bottles of relabelled boones farm treat me in the near future

Right. Just remember that one does not serve wine "on the rocks."

right, I was going to make a wine shandy.

right, I was going to make a wine shandy.

That sounds as appetizing as a beer float.

I don't find the results of these studies to be surprising at all. The wines are not so different that one can repeated tell the subtle differences between a 90 and 95 rating. Also, there are all sorts of psychological factors, which affect a taster's impression, going on. I often find that the wine that knocked my socks off last month is only just good this month.

I think it would be much worse for audio. With amplifier and sources, the differences are much more subtle than between wines (IMO). If reviewers (and all of us) actually did controlled blind listening when searching for equipment, I suspect we'd all save a lot of money. Of course that would spoil our fun, so we don't do it.

Except that...isn't it a scientific fact that wine changes (continues to ferment, begins to go bad, evaporates, etc.) over time (in ways that audio equipment does not)?

Very good article, BTW, and I do see a lot of analogies between the wine and audio equipment worlds.

I prefer the three tier system for rating wine.

--Great, nectar in a bottle, good enough to drink every night and with special friends.

--Ok, good restaurant wine, serve en mass at holiday events.

--Awful, tastes like Jimmy Hoffa marinade. For cooking and deglazing.

The rating scale is needed because there are only so many ways you can differentiat--"f***ing good".

Except that...isn't it a scientific fact that wine changes (continues to ferment, begins to go bad, evaporates, etc.) over time (in ways that audio equipment does not)?

Very good article, BTW, and I do see a lot of analogies between the wine and audio equipment worlds.

Definitely wine changes over time. However, some of the blind tests in the article was wine from the same bottle served several times during the day. Now, the wine could change during that time, but one would expect the results to consistently follow the change (i.e. (almost) everybody would agree how it changed in their ratings), but that didn't happen.

I prefer the three tier system for rating wine.

--Great, nectar in a bottle, good enough to drink every night and with special friends.

--Ok, good restaurant wine, serve en mass at holiday events.

--Awful, tastes like Jimmy Hoffa marinade. For throwing away.

The rating scale is needed because there are only so many ways you can differentiat--"f***ing good".

Works for me except I change it as above.

Edited November 17, 200916 yr by guzziguy

Burn-in for Wine? and the Taster?

Sometimes it's burnout, for both the wine and the taster.

The numerical system for wine rating is primarily a marketing and sales tool. First of all as you stated depending on how long the wine has been open or decanted can dramatically change the taste and perceived "goodness". Second, taste is subjective to some degree and when we are talking about fractions of differences of say a 88 versus a 90 points, time of day and how the wine hits your tongue can vary it's perceived taste. Also French wines as well as other old world vintners for example can have a wider variance with some appellations and sometimes even within the same year due to their wine making methods. This quantitative scale just helps differentiate good versus better for the audience and justify pricing differences along the way.

Just my humble opinion of course.

Except that...isn't it a scientific fact that wine changes (continues to ferment, begins to go bad, evaporates, etc.) over time (in ways that audio equipment does not)?

I don't know, Singlepower amps have been reported to do the this.