|
|
|
|
|
|
by dschwartz88
4736 days ago
|
|
|
I'm definitely not a wine "connoisseur" by any means, and don't think cost has much of anything to do with the quality of the wine. I've had some amazing cheap wine, and awful expensive wine. However, to me this article misses the point. The more interesting question to me would be: Can these judges continually figure out if a wine is "bad" or "good". Give them the same two wines over and over again, one being "bad" (Franzia) and another being "good" (Some agreed upon California cab or similar) and see what shakes out. I'd be very surprised if any of the judges couldn't figure out which was worse than the other. |
|
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008....
They found that individual judges were generally not very consistent in their rankings but that if you use small groups of judges then you can get better reproducibility.
The exact numbers are in the paper, but about 67% of the experts had statistically significant reliability for red wines and about 50% had statistically significant reliability for whites.
Also interesting is John Cleese's film about wine in which he conducted a blind taste test that found that most tasters couldn't discriminate between white and red wine. I couldn't find it online, but the whole thing is worth watching if you're interested in wine.