rbazinet
Posts: 166
Joined: 4/13/2008
From: Toronto, Ontario
Status: offline
|
This is quite interesting to me. I bring significant bias to the table, both being a relatively new wine enthusiast and a scientist specializing in the neurosciences. My colleague studies the genetics of taste and we have been discussing this for the past two years. I understand that people use CT for a variety of purposes and this is by no means a critique of how people use it. I think it is great that somebody can plug in a number and go back and look at it in the future. This is by far the best program I have seen (Eric when I get back from my travels, I owe you a donation) and I love seeing the variety of comments people post. Obviously I dismiss some comments outright, but in general they are very helpfull. Now that I have been nice, here is my beef with the field of wine scoring, not CT per se. I was recently screened with a chemical test regarding my ability to taste certain things. Out of a group of about 30, two of us were deemed “super tasters” and I just gave a check swab to confirm this genetically (it will likely take a couple of weeks to get the results). The range in this group of relatively trained people was literally 0-100. Two of us had a very strong unpleasant perception to a chemical called phenylthiocarbamide, about 9 could detect it and 9 could not even detect it. So what? Unless individuals have common characteristics they [generally] appreciate in a wine (which I admit we do to a certain extent) or know something about the perception of the taster (something they often do, albeit it surely varies) a number/score from 50-100 is relatively meaningless to other people. Describing wine perception characteristics can be somewhat useful i.e. it tastes very oaky, lot’s of berries or it has a buttery mouth feel to it, but we must remember that not all people will perceive this, nor like it if they do. I tend to look at the described characteristics (I happen to enjoy mouth feel and oak in certain wines) and if they coincide with a relatively high score … I get interested and look at what other people have said.
This combined with the lack of blind scores, and the effect of both environment and price (have you seen the 2008 paper on the effect of price on wine perception [both on relative score and brain function] in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science?) on wine perception leaves me very skeptical. Maybe I will summarize that article in the future, it is fascinating.
That being said, I will continue to “score” the wines I taste and will continue to look at other people’s scores. If the stars (characteristics) are aligned, I will try to purchase some. Again, obviously people can do whatever they want and those who disagree … I would love to hear why.
I know I have only rated 8 wines so it is especially easy for me to be critical of the process. I find scoring wines very relaxing and for me, putting them online is more fun than in a folder on my computer.
On an aside, I “heard a rumor” that certain wine regions are quite interested in the genetics of taste perception and are currently looking into doing some research. I think that as we begin to figure this out, the future of rating wines could become very controversial, especially if it peaks at time near when Parker retires. High-tech vs traditional … not that would be first debate of this sort in the field.
I sincerely hope nobody was offended. I just love a good controversy.
|
Printable Version
Most PROLIFIC tasting note writers? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread