Wine Tasting is a Lonely Pursuit
Folks who find themselves arguing against ratings systems for wine, particularly the exacting 100 point scale rating system, often retreat, eventually, into what can only be called the "Final Point": Wine tasting is ultimately a subjective thing!
It’s often a point that is offered as coup de grace in an attack on rating wine. A more robust assertion looks like this: "Even if one can accurately describe a wine using a rating system and words, the critic’s palate is just that…his own, and that means my palate is as sure as his."
John Bender, a professor of philosophy at the University of Ohio and a sometimes wine writer, takes on in full this notion of subjectivity of wine tasting in a wonderful little exploration in the recently released book, "Wine & Philosophy". In his contribution to this collection of essay entitled "What the Wine Critic Tells Us", Dr. Bender argues that this Final Point is not so final.
Dr. Bender makes the case that well-trained and experienced tasters can indeed objectively perceive the specific qualities in a wine such as sugar levels, tannins, degrees of Bret and any number of other physical characteristics of a wine that lend themselves to detection by the palate. Further, he notes, correctly I think, that what is perceived in a wine by experienced palates can be validated by simple testing in a lab.
This is not a controversial claim. His next claim however is an interesting and somewhat less specific one.
What about evaluations and qualitative descriptions of wines? Is it a subjective statement when I assert that "this Merlot is under ripe and displays unfortunate vegetal characteristics"?
It would seem so, but Dr. Bender cautions us, "not so fast". Bender makes a rather interesting claim that because our opinions are open to argumentation by others, open to being changed by a good argument, it just might be that something close to an objective qualitative claim about the aesthetic value of a wine might be possible. It just might be that I could convince you that this Merlot IS too vegetal, rather than "balanced" and "complex" as you claim. Bender makes this final appeal:
"Since standards or sensibilities are open to argumentation, they can be judged as more or less plausible or more or less experienced. When it comes to aesthetic sensibilities, one can be convinced to make a change. This process need not be seen as any more "subjective" than a debate over justice is necessarily subjective."
I think Dr. Bender is inclined to believe that there are aesthetic standards for different wines that have proven themselves reliable and helpful to consumers and the market and that they have developed over the years, if not centuries. I think his argument here is offered to support this contention, which, by the way, is an objective observation of the realities of the wine market. However, the existence of well excepted standards and the fact that folks can be convinced through a finely constructed argument to accept them does not make them objective truths any more than Christian, Muslim or Jewish claims to the ultimate moral righteousness of their God’s moral claims make them objective truths. Standards of what a wine should be always will be judgments, despite the source or the force of conviction that stands be hand an argument for those standards.
Dr. Bender goes on to discuss the role the "sensibility" plays in our evaluations of wine. That is to say, If I am much more sensitive to acidity than you, it would simply be impossible for you to argue that I SHOULD find what I perceive as an edgy, overly acidic wine to be crisp and refreshing as you do. You can’t make the argument I should because the objective nature of my palate does not allow me to.
This all leads me to conclude that wine tasting and particularly the evaluation of wine is a LONELY PURSUIT. Only I can taste what I taste. If we are lucky our palates will align and we can together discuss the characteristics and merits of a wine. Perhaps I’ll change your mind about this Zinfandel’s merits or that Cabernet’s qualities. But in the end, my palate is mind, your palate is yours and they shall never actually meet.
Tom I agree, that everyones palate and tastes are different. However, wine reviewers do serve a purpose for the many folks who can not take the time or afford the expense to try hundreds of wines to find palate nirvana. In addition, many folks who use wine ratings are also looking for a quick recommendation of a Very Good or better wine that will satisfy them. That was the premise behind my consensus scoring system. If 3 or 4 professionals (or tasting panels) agree that a wine is Very Good or better, the wine buyer using reviews has a good chance to be satisfied with the recommendation. Nothing is better than finding a wine on your own that will perfectly satisfy your palate. But if a wine reviewer can help you get to that happy palate place, then use them for what they offer. Cheers.
Ken,
I’d never argue the wine reviewers and critics aren’t helpful. In fact I think it probably more like that the average wine critic has a palate with a sensitivity level close to that of a consumer. I merely find this issue of Sensibility and objectivity interesting and worthy of note.
Cheers,
Tom..
You can make all kinds of arguments for what a score means/implies/accounts for, but in the end, it’s simply a number that accompanies the wine, much like the price that (supposedly) reflects it.
Let’s put scores back into context for a moment. The reason why critics put scores in their reviews is because they believe (rightly) that people need them.
While it is true that numbers without commentary are arbitrary and of little real value to consumers, it is also true that most people, when presented with a paragraph of tasting notes AND a score, are going to look at the score first and then decide if the review is worth reading. Would you bother reading a review of a wine with a dreadful score? Didn’t think so.
Conversely, a high score on an unfamiliar label/varietal/appellation might intrigue a reader enough to spend time with the actual review. In this instance, (high) scores have the effect of broadening a drinker’s horizons, instead of narrowing them as the naysayers fear.
In the end, we need scores, we need critics, we need to make comparisons between wines because there is an overwhelming amount of choice. And with almost no meaningful advertising coming from producers as to what distinguishes their wines (other than scores), there is simply nowhere else to turn. (Please, don’t get me started on the recommendations of retailers. Their interests are as conflicted as the publisher who reviews the wines of its advertisers.)
Good points, Tom, and good comments. Two things not mentioned here:
1)Wine critics tend to applaud and “rate highly” wines with characteristics that many consumers simply do not prefer. I did a blind comparision recently with wine-loving but non-collecting consumers and 12 out of 13 folks preferred K-J Pinot over a very nice Chehalem 2005 from Oregon. Reason? Most cited the “funk” factor… The critic’s complexity is not in synch with palates of many people looking for things that simply taste good to them. From a pure factual standpoint, 12/13 found the K-J to be better. Are they wrong? No!
2) Context changes everything. To me, one of the worst things about scores is the appearance of definitiveness. Any semi-experienced wine drinker knows that wines are perceived differently based on the food, the company, the situation. Given that most scores and tasting notes are tattooed on bottles in blind, sterile conditions, their utility is severely limited.
One last point, re Fred’s comment about retailers. Maybe I am just lucky, but I know at least 5 retail stores where I feel I get more informed and honest advice than I would from magazines. Ditto wine pros in restaurants. What I admire about their advice is that they can handle that pressure
of putting their reputations on the line when they recommend; if they blow it, I will go elsewhere.
Tom,
The difference between subjective and objective is quite simple:
Objective characteristics are measurable–in a laboratory. Subjective characteristics are not. That’s not to say that a subjective opinion cannot utter an objective fact, but to prove it requires lab analysis.
Since Bender’s view is philosophical, it epitomizes subjectivity, and I have no choice but to disagree with him, objectively…
Tish,
You know full well that a retailer should, and a good one does, size up customers and then make recommendations based on the sizing up. That way, the odds are on the retailer’s side that the recommendation will be a hit.
The retailer may or may not like the wine, but that isn’t the retailer’s need–the need is for the customer to like the wine.
A minor correction to your posting:
You probably mean to say Ohio University, not University of Ohio. “U of O” does not exist. Ohio Univ is in Athens. The Ohio State University is in Columbus… yes, it’s “The Ohio State University”. Go Bucks!
Tom – this is a great topic.
I think that everyone that has posted has made valid points. Most people believe that they are getting something special when they purchase a wine that has been rated favorably. Yet, in my humble opinion those same people may not have a developed palate and simply can not appreciate the wine or the manner in which it was rated. At the same time people’s palates will never fully align, so why should anyone listen to these numbers?
I am under the impression that people interested in purchasing wine based on ratings should read the reviews instead (wherever you can find them). If one could then find someone who’s palate even slightly matches their own, then people could buy with more confidence.
P.S. and then there will always be those people who don’t care and simply buy based on price and label images
I tend to follow my own palate and memory recall when I purchase. If I liked one of a certain winemaker’s wine’s, I’ll try more from that winemaker. if I like it , I’ll recommend it to others. I have friends with good taste and I’ll take their recommendations. Occasionally I’ll find a critic who’s tastes seem to align with mine and I might trust as score or two if I’m on the fence in the store.
Sometimes “certain” wine reviewers high scores will tend to let me know I won’t like that wine since it will be a super hot fruit bomb… so they can be useful in a contrarian sense sometimes.
In the end we are all alone anyway but its fun to try to explain our experience. Love the post Tom. I’d added this site to my blog roll,I’d love a link back. Take a look.
I tend to follow my own palate and memory recall when I purchase. If I liked one of a certain winemaker’s wine’s, I’ll try more from that winemaker. if I like it , I’ll recommend it to others. I have friends with good taste and I’ll take their recommendations. Occasionally I’ll find a critic who’s tastes seem to align with mine and I might trust as score or two if I’m on the fence in the store.
Sometimes “certain” wine reviewers high scores will tend to let me know I won’t like that wine since it will be a super hot fruit bomb… so they can be useful in a contrarian sense sometimes.
In the end we are all alone anyway but its fun to try to explain our experience. Love the post Tom. I’d added this site to my blog roll,I’d love a link back. Take a look.