Comments on the Wall Street Journal "A Taste of Illusion" Article

The Wall Street Journal's Weekend Journal issue of Nov. 14-15 featured a front page article written by Leonard Mlodinow who teaches randomness at Caltech, entitled "A Hint of Hype, A Taste of Illusion" about how "They pour, sip and with passion and snobbery, glorify and doom wines. But studies say the wine-rating system is badly flawed. How the experts fare against a coin toss." It is a very interesting article, and I agree with much of it, although it makes more assumptions than it should. Wine evaluation can be highly subjective, and results can vary significantly. But I do have a few comments to make.

My first comment is about the contention that "even flavor-trained professionals cannot reliably identify more than three or four components in a mixture, although wine critics regularly report tasting six or more." I agree that even the most seasoned taster cannot identify more than four components at one moment. But wine continually changes in the glass so that multiple components can be identified in repeated nosings and sips. In re-evaluating wines from samples purchased at tasting rooms, I generally will spend 10-20 minutes smelling, tasting and swirling to pick up the various components. Continued tasting can reveal more nuances or shortcomings as well. I also do believe that the more complex a wine is, the more components there are to be identified (so I'll just go on and keep providing detailed descriptions in my reviews).

I totally agree with the randomness of wine competitions. I have already addressed this in my blog of September 28 which concurs with the conclusions of Robert Hodgson that "winning a Gold medal is largely a matter of chance." This is the same study that the Wall Street Journal Article refers to.

My final comment is about the range of deviation among ratings of the same wine, even from the same reviewer. Robert Parker admits a possible deviation of 2-3 points on his 100 point scale. Given that the 100 point system is really a 20 point one since 80 points is the baseline for a good commercial wine, a deviation of 3 points is a 15% one. With the 20 point system I use (see my blog of September 7) there is a 16 points baseline which means that a deviation of a half point is one-eighth or 12.5%. With either system, there is at least that much subjectivity (probably more) involved. I readily admit my ratings can deviate by a half point or so, depending on when and how I tasted a particular wine.

In short, wine reviewers are not infallible. We all have our preferences and biases, and as one critic commented, "We're not robots." But at the same time, wine tasting is not necessarily an "Illusion," but rather a sensory experience that can convey differing impressions to different tasters. It is up to the consumer to decide what he or she likes best. Wine ratings can only be guidelines, not arbitrary pronouncements.