Is A Glance At The Label Worth A Few Extra Points?

[Alan Gardner]

Some observations and thoughts after participating in the First Annual Gala Celebration.

As background, MOST of my tastings (whether Port or otherwise) are done ‘single blind’ which means we know the wines – but not the order they’re poured in. And in smaller groups they are totally blind. That’s just the way we’ve become used to doing it.
But at the Gala all the wines were ‘known’ – so my issue is whether seeing the label affects the score assigned. (Another aside: at our home tastings we assign rankings of 1 through 8 (say) rather than using an average of scores).
Reviewing my overall ratings of the 60+ fortified wines consumed I am now wondering if knowledge of the identity has influenced my ratings.

Early on, as part of the discussion, I identified 1966 as being my favourite vintage (for Port of course) – so when the flight of 66’s arrived I gave it my highest average score of any flight served. Was I merely being prescient about the quality of 66’s – or was I justifying my prior statement?
And reviewing my ratings across flights, I notice that Taylor and Graham performed particularly well (compared to my scores in blind tastings) whereas Warre and Dow were less successful. (Fonseca was inconsistent – sometimes doing better than usual and sometimes worse). So did I ‘adjust’ the scores for those houses, based on reputation?

Or did my ratings merely reflect actual performance on that day at that time.
Anybody else have thoughts on whether a glance at the label is worth a few extra (or fewer) points in the rating?

[Glenn E.]

Personally, I think that label bias is very real and that it affects everyone. Some people are more able to recognize it and compensate than others, but the label bias is still there.

I still don't rate Port because I don't feel that I have enough experience. I will rank them vs each other, especially during a single sitting, but I have not yet learned enough to be able to place those rankings into a numerical scale. Some day, perhaps, but not yet.

I'm also aware that I'm quite susceptible to label bias. If I am ever going to rate wines then it will have to be done blind. Otherwise I'm quite confident that "highly rated" Ports would gain an extra point or two (or three or four). At which point my ratings would be useless.

I don't seem to have that problem when doing rankings. It's easier for me to objectively compare two Ports and say "I like this one better" than it is to assign them a numerical rating.

I realize that to a great extent this is semantics, but not entirely. Rankings don't have to consider past performance or potential future performance. I don't have to worry about whether this beautiful 1947 Noval in front of me is better than the 1963 Fonseca I had last November, while simultaneously worrying about whether it is better than the 1970 Taylor I had at Roy's house or the 1935 Sandeman sitting next to it. Nor do I have to be concerned that some day, somewhere, I will taste something even better which I need to leave room for while giving it a rating. Ranking is simple - do I like the '47 better than the '35 or not? How much better isn't something I have to consider.

I was quite surprised by some of my choices at the 2009 Port Gala, but that encourages me. It means I was able to be reasonably objective (which I'm sure was aided by being reasonably ). I guess that's possibly one beneficial side effect of being a novice - I don't know enough yet to really care about whether or not my preferences match the conventional wisdom.

[Eric Menchen]

There is some irony here. I don't know much about this year vs. that, this producer vs. that. I've heard of the good years, and read about some great bottles. But I don't know these very well. So even my known tastings are pretty blind. But like Glenn, I don't think I'm experienced enough to assign a score. Perhaps I should be assigning scores now, without the benefit of knowledge and experience. When I have that, I'll also be biased. Or not, but it certainly is a possibility.

[Jose Costa]

Yup, I think it does affect the ability to rate "neutrally" as does the environment where the tasting is done. I have found that in the past whilst tasting in Wine Fairs, interfacing with someone that is pleasant and knowledgeable :hello: can lead to higher ratings versus at a stall where the people appear to be less interested in interfacing in a pleasant manner.

I am not sure what the Gala is like but personally I would rather not rate wines at an event like that and I would do my utmost to just enjoy the wines and the company. :blah:

If I am going to taste wines for rating then the only way I can do it and remain neutral and thus fully focused on the wine itself is to do it totally blind and rate the wines at the end, after first ranking them and to do it preferably in an environment where I am comfortable.

CHEERS!
Jose

[Moses Botbol]

I don't mind looking at the label so much. I have been fortunate to have been in offline's with several people on this site, and I find that our scores are usually really close, within a point or two. We each bring to the table a different and perhaps similar notions of each wine before we drink them.

Certain members I find my palette is closer aligned with some than others (not that I have a great palette, just a similar taste profile). :blah:

Once I have had a couple of offline's with someone, I feel I can read into their opinion more because I understand what they are looking at from their point-of-view.

[Roy Hersh]

Alan,

All of my tasting groups ... all wines are blind. Critical assessment of cask samples for one of my annual reports: 100% blind.

I get your point, but the 1st Gala was not the place to do a blind tasting. Maybe a flight here or there, but I believe that it was more educational to be able to evaluate the wine for some that may be less experienced than you and me, to enjoy the Ports for what they were. Even knowing what was on the lable would only bias a couple of people. I can honestly say, it doesn't phase me either way to drink blind or sited with Port especially because I judge the wines on their own merit and know the extraordrinary amount of bottle variation, especially when bottles have been bottled in the UK in the old days. They may have better bottlins in a lot of cases in the old days, but imo, with more bottle variation.

Anyway, that is not the point. Only about half of the people at the tasting die any scoring ... even if they were doing tasting notes. So if you are not scoring, I don't see blind tasting have a greater advantage. I am on professional judging panels that taste blind and when I drink with these guys elsewhere, we are in agreement that for the most serious evaluations, blind is imperative. But for true enjoyment, it is not imperative. You can let a label taint your view of what you are going to taste, but why? Expectation?

Anyway, a fun topic to be sure. Maybe next year, we'll do some flights blind, but it would cut down on the "fun factor" if all flights were blind ... not to mention how much longer it would take and these were already very long events.

[Glenn E.]

Maybe next year, we'll do some flights blind, but it would cut down on the "fun factor" if all flights were blind ... not to mention how much longer it would take and these were already very long events.

Here's something that might be fun - have a specific blind event at the end of the Gala, and serve Ports that had already been served at some other point during the weekend. They would obviously have to be different bottles, but it might be fun to try and identify the wines again during the blind event. It wouldn't even have to be a large event - even just 4 previously served Ports served again blind would be a fun experience.

[Moses Botbol]

Maybe next year, we'll do some flights blind, but it would cut down on the "fun factor" if all flights were blind ... not to mention how much longer it would take and these were already very long events.

Here's something that might be fun - have a specific blind event at the end of the Gala, and serve Ports that had already been served at some other point during the weekend. They would obviously have to be different bottles, but it might be fun to try and identify the wines again during the blind event. It wouldn't even have to be a large event - even just 4 previously served Ports served again blind would be a fun experience.

I did something like that at a Scotch tasting a couple of years ago. My friends thinks he is a Scotch expert and can tell one from another of his collection. I poured him a Scotch, he tasted it, named it and was wrong. I repoured him the same Scotch again, he tasted it, named a different incorrect Scotch. Everyone but him knew I did that and everyone start laughing like crazy.

[Eric Menchen]

I very much enjoyed the format of the gala as it was, and think trying to taste a lot blind would slow things down. But I also like Glenn's idea. Maybe throw in a "new" (non-repeat) bottle or two as well just to keep the experts on their toes.

[Kris Henderson]

I'm not sure knowing the label always affects the results. For example, I was really looking forward to the 1970 Taylor and thought it would be 1st or a close 2nd in the flight. Except for the corked 1970 Ferreira, it was my least favorite. Except for knowing the big names, I had very few preconceived notions about what to expect.

I found myself being swayed more by the discussions that followed each flight. Initially I was really impressed by the 1935 Sandeman and had picked it as my favorite but after hearing some comments regarding it vs the 1947 Noval then going back and critically tasting each I decided that while the 1935 Sandeman was very good, the 1947 Noval was a little better.

[Andy Velebil]

Always an interesting discussion about this and I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. I have to say it really depends on the taster. Sure blind tasing is always a great way to do it, and one I prefer for serious reviews as it takes away all preconcieved notions about a particular wine and/or producer. But I also know many people that can rate a wine based on what is in the glass. I've seen this first hand and it happens from time to time on the Harvest Trip with participants and the producer being there. Some very good discussion sometimes come as a result of people speaking up and noticing something in the glass as they try it. To be fair, both good and bad things are discussed, so it's not a one way street.

But I've also seen far more people rate a wine soley based on label. I see this alot on another wine forum where people get served their "favorite producer" blind and they don't like it. There is also the now-infamous Blackjack/Latour switch with Jeff Leve that Trevor Sheehan and I pulled on him at a big dinner. Yes, we put Blackjack Cabernet in an old Latour bottle that we had already drank before he got there and served it to him...he loved it and waxed poeticaly about how great it was, yada yada yada. Then we served it to him later out of the original Blackjack bottle and he totally trashed it as plonk and spit it out. You had to be there, but it was the most blatant case of label bias I've ever seen.

[Alan Gardner]

Sorry to have abandoned this thread for about a week - a computer crash and eventual purchase of a new machine have occupied my time - now I'm recovering all (I hope) my data - and have just re-added this site to my Links.

If it appeared that I was 'preaching' to do blind tastings at the 2nd annual tasting - well maybe my comments at the first tasting were milder than I thought! I thought I made it abundantly clear that my opinions weren't particularly subtle! Incidentally that was a great experience - and as a long-time organizer of events it was a pleasure to sit back and let other people do the work - I know how much work it is. And next year you'll have to change the format - 1 bottle can't possibly be served to the hundreds of potential attendees who missed out this year!

As I think was obvious - my views are not likely to be affected (or so I thought) by the reputation of the Producer, the reputation of the person providing the wine, or if the dozen people ahead of me raved about it and I 'hated' it. So I was indeed surprised to find that my ratings of Taylor and Graham (in particular) seemed higher than in the past. And Dow and Warre, performed less well for me. I recall that, for many attendees, the Smith Woodhouse ports were the most pleasant 'surprise' - an excellent House, with reasonable prices. That in itself (I hope) shows that the 'group' were rating honestly and appropriately. Coincidentally, I had offered several S-W ports as a contribution - except someone got in ahead of me, so I substituted - retaining these as part of a potential mini-vertical (in Toronto).

Of course, in 'formal' tastings I ALWAYS favour 'blind' tasting over knowledge of the house. There's always the chance to discover that the cheapest wine is the one I like best (I live in hope - don't think it's ever happened!).

And thanks to all those that chimed in. It is certainly apparent that some bottles were better (and some worse) than the 'average' performance of that vintage/house. With such a small sample (less than a hundred ports of multiple houses and vintages) - much too small to draw any statistical conclusions - obviously we'll just have to work harder at this.

My next tasting here (sold out) is a BLIND tasting of 1970 Taylor vs 1970 Fonseca. 3 different bottlings of each. I'll try and take notes both before and after the identities are revealed! (And as Fonseca is my favourite house, I hope it wins!). Maybe I should throw in a 66 as well - except I've drunk all those.

[Roy Hersh]

Here is a funny story and i knew this would "work."

On Monday night, I had one of my tasting groups to our home to do our monthly tasting event. I chose Douro reds as the theme. It is the hosts duty to supply a white wine to kick off the evening, prior to our critical analysis of wines during the sit down session. I poured a bottle of 2007 Crasto Douro White, a relatively inexpensive but very tasty young wine. I should add that this particular group is made up of retailers, importers, distributors and a couple of older and v. serious enophiles with excellent palates. After spending a half hour drinking that bottle slowly and everyone taking notes, we sat for the main event.

I started with a white wine. It had been decanted for about 3 hours and kept at a slightly warmer temperature than the last bottle. However it was the identical wine from the same case and to me, it showed almost no difference except the nose was not as mineral laden or expansive. That said ... it was poured less than two minutes after we sat down, after having just finished our last sips of the first bottle which was not blind.

Not too surprisingly, not one single individual in the room realized it was the exact same 2007 Crasto Douro White. Nobody. In fact they were really surprised. Normally such a "stunt" would be met with disdain for trying to trick the group. Although I must admit I was trying to make a point, I pawned it off on: "I had decanted this bottle and left it out of refrigeration for a bit and wanted to see how differently it showed" (which it really did not). This kept me out of the deep water. The results speak for themself.

[Alan Gardner]

Good story. Wouldn't work with my group - they almost expect such 'shenannigans' (although did fool them after a tasting of St Emilion wines by including a separate 'mystery' wine - it was Cheval Blanc).
But to a point - did your group have a preference as to whether they preferred the 'decanted' version vs the 'just opened' version?

As background, we once did a sequence of tasting of 'trios' - 3 known to be identical wines in each flight of which one was decanted 4-5 hours earler, one decanted an hour earlier, (and all subsequently returned to the bottle) poured alongside a just opened bottle.
In each flight, the newly opened bottle came top (OK one was 'just' in second place) while the 4-5 hour decanted finished in last place (one escaped to second place). Since then we have followed the 'open & pour immediately' philosophy - except when there is a sediment, where we typically 'decant and pour immediately'.

[Eric Menchen]

Sounds like time for some triangle tests.

[Alan Gardner]

Yup - the fastest way to sober up!
We actually do this whenever someone claims he/she can detect when we have filtered a wine (we use unbleached coffee filters). If they 'pass' (it did happen once) we invite them to become a Director of our group!

[Roy Hersh]

Alan,

In last Monday night's adventure, the group mostly preferred the freshly opened bottle vs. the decanted bottle ... however these declarations were only made (of course) after being somewhat ... er, after seeing the label was the same.

[Alan Gardner]

Or maybe the humidity in the original cellars was different.

I suspect we both qualify as genuine wine geeks.

Alan

[Roy Hersh]

This discussion can't be over YET ...

We have yet to yet.

[Andy Velebil]

My favorite one is the 1983 Taylors. No slight to anyone particularly, but it always cracks me up when people wax poetically about this one. I always think there has to be label bias involved, as it's not up to snuff when I hear people say its a 95 point wine :?