For The Love Of Port

Last night we had a redo of the Ruby Reserve Tasting, the original was in March 2012 with a corresponding article in the Newsletter authored by Glenn.

The WOTN was easily Noval Black with Taylor 1st Estate taking silver---similar results from 2012! But the Sandeman was off considerably from the last time. Line-up was solid with each getting multiple selections for personal Top 3. My personal favorite was the Croft. Here's a recap of result:

V nice - huge agreement on the noval black!
What was the format of your tasting? Did you guys go one by one talking about them or did you do them blind and/or individually wo discussion?

The tasting was totally blind, served in two sets of three (not enough room or glassware for all 6 at once). I did the wrapping and buying, another numbered them and others poured (I leave the room so as to not be influenced). There is discussion as we taste, so a bit of collaboration, but which is helpful overall.

you guys take this seriously

Thanks for the recap. I really enjoy the Noval Black so no surprise it won this round. It punches above it's relatively cheap price point.

Great recap John, thanks!

Interesting that Noval Black did so well this time around, because IIRC it was pretty middle-of-the-pack in multiple tastings last time. Had it been just a single tasting one could have argued that it was a bad bottle, but my memory says that both it and Six Grapes (the two reasons for the original tastings) were consistently middle of the road.

Different group of people this time? Palates have changed over the years? I doubt that Noval has changed the blend, but I suppose that's possible.

Actually NB scored well for us in 2012.... maybe we get the better blends in NJ!

I do think the order tasted can effect results.... maybe that was a factor ...it was first.

John M. wrote:Actually NB scored well for us in 2012.... maybe we get the better blends in NJ!

I do think the order tasted can effect results.... maybe that was a factor ...it was first.

Good point. IME, Black does better with either a long decant or the next day. Pop and pour, it doesn't always show it's best. It's a very good Reserve Ruby and is more akin to a good LBV.

Decant time [bottles opened] was 12-13 hours.

Maybe need to consider a tasting where we mess with order.... trying to think of a control to get the right isolation of the variable "order". Thoughts?

John M. wrote:Maybe need to consider a tasting where we mess with order.... trying to think of a control to get the right isolation of the variable "order". Thoughts?

Mix up the order between all the tasters, without them knowing. Of course then you have to give them the decoder when you want to discuss. "O.k., what did everyone think of the Fonseca? For you John, that was the #3, for Glenn it was #7, ..." What could possibly go wrong after drinking multiple Ports? And maybe the first pour for everyone is a known calibration Port, not part of the lineup.

Eric Menchen wrote:

John M. wrote:Maybe need to consider a tasting where we mess with order.... trying to think of a control to get the right isolation of the variable "order". Thoughts?

Mix up the order between all the tasters, without them knowing. Of course then you have to give them the decoder when you want to discuss. "O.k., what did everyone think of the Fonseca? For you John, that was the #3, for Glenn it was #7, ..." What could possibly go wrong after drinking multiple Ports? And maybe the first pour for everyone is a known calibration Port, not part of the lineup.

What could possibly go wrong...you're funny

Eric Menchen wrote:

John M. wrote:Maybe need to consider a tasting where we mess with order.... trying to think of a control to get the right isolation of the variable "order". Thoughts?

Mix up the order between all the tasters, without them knowing. Of course then you have to give them the decoder when you want to discuss. "O.k., what did everyone think of the Fonseca? For you John, that was the #3, for Glenn it was #7, ..." What could possibly go wrong after drinking multiple Ports? And maybe the first pour for everyone is a known calibration Port, not part of the lineup.

I think it could probably be done simply by numbering the glasses and then mixing them up for each taster. The tasters would have to agree to not talk about the wines until done with all of them, but that shouldn't be hard for a smaller tasting. Say, no more than 6-8 bottles. It'd probably be too difficult (to not talk) in one of our large 16+ bottle tastings.

Glenn E. wrote:

Eric Menchen wrote:

John M. wrote:Maybe need to consider a tasting where we mess with order.... trying to think of a control to get the right isolation of the variable "order". Thoughts?

Mix up the order between all the tasters, without them knowing. Of course then you have to give them the decoder when you want to discuss. "O.k., what did everyone think of the Fonseca? For you John, that was the #3, for Glenn it was #7, ..." What could possibly go wrong after drinking multiple Ports? And maybe the first pour for everyone is a known calibration Port, not part of the lineup.

I think it could probably be done simply by numbering the glasses and then mixing them up for each taster. The tasters would have to agree to not talk about the wines until done with all of them, but that shouldn't be hard for a smaller tasting. Say, no more than 6-8 bottles. It'd probably be too difficult (to not talk) in one of our large 16+ bottle tastings.

That works logistically, but each taster is different--even when we taste in the same order the results are all over. How do eliminate that to just get a pure measurement/influence of order? It's almost as of we need to do the tasting twice on consecutive days so each person could have two results. A few would have to repeat the same original order (unknown to them of course) as a control. That way each person could compare their results on both days. Of course we'd have to have 2 bottles of each (one each day), same decant time, maybe eat the same foods each day at same time in case that is an issue.