31 January 2007
Double-blind red wine tasting
The idea of tasting wines blindly always intrigued me, and the quickest way to participate in one was to host one, something that my fiancee and I happily did recently for some friends and family. I brainstormed many ways to give our tasting a fun twist and came up with an “old world” vs “new world” theme. I would purchase 6 wines (that no one – including me – had tasted) under $20/bottle, three being from the “old world” and three from the “new world”, the bottles ideally exemplifying the typical characteristics of a wine from their respective “world”. Our main goals for this tasting were:
- make wine fun, because wine is fun!
- help friends see real values in wines (hence under $20/bottle) and take some of the “snobbiness” away from wine culture
- help friends learn about their palate preferences… old world vs new world?
As an additional enjoyable “twist” to the tasting, I asked our guests to bring samples of foods from this list. These foods spanned blackberries, strawberries, and chocolate-covered cherries to items like olives, thyme, and rosemary. These tastes were meant to help everyone have a reference point and educate their palate on many of the tastes that they would find in wines.
Shortly after sampling these foods, our guests would then have a taste from the wines wrapped in brown paper bags labeled ‘A’ through ‘F’. We handed each of our guests a sheet of paper with the ability to evaluate all six wines. The taster could write any relevant notes for a wine, circle whether the wine was “old world” or “new world”, and give a rating on a 10 point scale.
Below you will find the six wines ordered from least favored to most favored in this double-blind tasting.
Wine A – 2004 Haut Blanches Crozes Hermitage – $14.99
Commercial notes: This is the one Crozes Hermitage everyone needs to try this year! A brilliant effort, this $15 red will compete with almost anything else you have tried from the Rhone yet . . .a must buy. (winelibrary.com)
This is an “old world” wine from Rhone (France) that is mostly syrah. While I objectively believe that this is a solid bottle of wine (and one that would improve with increased aeration), its distinct character was not cumulatively favored by tasters.
Tasters’ summary: high score: 9 | low score: 1 | mean score: 5.6 | thought “old”: 4 | thought “new”: 4
Wine B – 2002 Chateau Valrose Cuvee Alienor – $19.99
Commercial notes: 91 Points – Gary Vaynerchuk Wow the only score I could find on this was an 88 from WS and though an 88 is a very good score I find this wine to be much more in the 90-91 range. The wonderful, complex and rich Valrose has a very obvious fruit complexity to it. As for the flavors of this wine the luscious perfume of blackberries, cassis, licorice, spice, and toasty oak are all obvious and distinct. A home run for the money! (winelibrary.com)
This mostly Cabernet Sauvignon tinto is an “old world” wine from the famous Bordeaux appellation of France. I personally found this wine to be very flavorful, forward, and balanced, but I’m not sure it struck our tasters best. I confused this for a “new world” wine.
Tasters’ summary: high score: 9 | low score: 4 | mean score: 6.3 | thought “old”: 3 | thought “new”: 5
Wine C – 2005 Clone 5 Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon – $19.99
Commercial notes: Today’s wine drinkers understand that it takes more than just a varietal being planted to make great wines. The specific clone of the varietal has become key to the final flavor profile, expressing true varietal flavors. The correct clone, the correct vineyard site, proper vineyard practices, and hands on winemaking result in this “Clone 5” Cabernet Sauvignon. 5 clones of Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot blended to showcase the appellation and what it produces if the vineyard is done right! Enjoy. (winelibrary.com)
This is also mostly Cabernet Sauvignon, but from the “new world”, specifically California’s Alexander Valley. Like the Valrose Bordeaux, I found this wine to be very balanced, smooth, but almost sweet. Our tasters preferred this “new world” cab to the “old world” cab. I, however, confused this for an “old world” wine.
Tasters’ summary: high score: 8 | low score: 5 | mean score: 6.8 | thought “old”: 6 | thought “new”: 2
Wine D – 2004 Savese Primitivo Le Petrose – $13.99
Commercial notes: Sensual and limpid violet/garnet color. Complex nose of cherries in liquor, black tea, floral spice, baked earth, and dark caramel. “Sweet” entry on the palate leads into flavors of prune and cinnamon hung in a nice, smooth mid- palate, and a finely gripping tannins on the finish (winelibrary.com)
This “old world” wine is made with Primitivo, more commonly known as Zinfandel. This wine reminded me of port or sauterne-like sweetness (raisins), but not too over-the-top, but well matched with its more subtle earthy flavors. I think the tasters enjoyed the more in-your-face wines, such as this sweeter tinto.
Tasters’ summary: high score: 9 | low score: 4 | mean score: 7.3 | thought “old”: 5 | thought “new”: 3
Wine E – 2004 Gravity Hills Tumbling Tractor Zinfandel – $13.99
Commercial notes: 88-90 Points – Robert Parker (Wine Advocate) A terrific value, it exhibits a deep ruby/purple color along with a gloriously sweet, jammy perfume of black cherries, berries, and licorice. Spicy, impressively-endowed, nicely-textured, pure, and well-made, it is a Zinfandel to buy by the case. Enjoy it over the next 1-3 years. (winelibrary.com)
I found this “new world” version of Zinfandel to be my personal winner – not an over-the-top Zin varietal character, but nice sweet vanilla and black raspberry. The tasters and I seemed to agree favorably with this wine (4 people rated this a 9, but it was still not their #1).
Tasters’ summary: high score: 9 | low score: 5 | mean score: 7.9 | thought “old”: 2 | thought “new”: 6
Wine F – 2005 Pillar Box Red – $7.99 – WINNER
Commercial notes: 91 Points – Robert Parker (Wine Advocate) There are 70,000 cases of the 2005 Red, a blend of Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Merlot from young vines. However, this is no wimpy wine at 15% alcohol. An unbelievable value, it boasts a dense ruby/purple color as well as an uplifted, projected nose of sweet red and black fruits, earth, and spice box. Supple-textured with a voluptuous mouthfeel and unbelievable richness, this wine clearly over-delivers. Enjoy it over the next 2-3 years. (winelibrary.com)
This is our cumulative winner, and at $8!!! This is why blind tastings can be so revealing and enjoyable. I did find great fruit in this Shiraz-dominated blend as well as a mix of egg shell and greenery. I thought this was VERY smooth on the palate. The scores speak for the tasters.
Tasters’ summary: high score: 10 | low score: 7 | mean score: 8.3 | thought “old”: 5 | thought “new”: 3
You may have noticed that the wines were rated higher as they were tasted (‘A’ being the lowest and stepping up to highest ‘F’), and while I found this initially concerning, I have concluded that this simply reflected the preference of the majority present (and maybe the addition air exposed to the latter wines). The majority of our tasters preferred the more forward “in-your-face” wines; this lines up with the top 3 rated fruit-forward and/or sweet tintos compared to the bottom 3 rated wines that boasted a more subtle and complex style of wine. I don’t think either preference is better than the other, but this tasting reflected the majority subjective preference of the group. I thoroughly enjoyed each bottle and honestly found each one to be a great value that I would recommend (give the Rhone wine some extra air, though). I am happily stunned by the results of this blind-tasting (even though it was a single-blind tasting for me) and will make this at least a yearly event to host (but I hope others can host something similar).
In the future (and as some humble advice for people that want to replicate a tasting like this one), I would narrow the rating scale from 1-10 to 1-5. This will narrow the extremes and grasp a more honest cumulative evaluation of a wine. Some bottles in this tasting suffered when rated a ‘1’ by a taster that also rated another bottle a ‘10’. A linear ranking would be another solution. In addition to changing the rating scale, I would ask that not everyone sample the wines in the same order in an effort to remove an additional variable or caveat from the tasting.
In summary, the cumulative results vs my personal results:
vs 
Wow Nicholas— I didnt know you were conducting experiments! All I can picture is how cool of an experiemt this was to watch your friends try! Now based on your results I am eager to taste a few- especially since the majority favored the more forward fruity wines.. so save me some when I’m back for your wedding! I think changing the scale to a 1-5 as opposed to 1-10 will definitely be easier to see the results because 1-10 really is a large scale in terms of taste and preference. Besides that— nicely done!!
— Missy Feb 1 #
I WISH I WAS THERE!!!
— Michael Feb 5 #
Amazing Nico, simply amazing. You must conduct one of these for us when we get there, that is of course if you’re not too busy entertaining all your guests. Who knew wine could be so scientific?
— Stephanie Feb 6 #