Blind vs. sighted ... does it really matter?

[Roy Hersh]

Not a new topic, but one worth taking the pulse today.

We are about to embark on a fun tasting of 1983 Vintage Ports and will do it blind. Label bias and all. How much does that really affect scores? Robert Parker never felt that it hampered his ability to evaluate wines fairly. Some would agree with him. Others not. Do you believe that you can evaluate Port regardless of knowing the producer?

[Eric Ifune]

I think evaluation and blind tasting are two seperate issues. One can always evaluate what's in front of you. I do believe in label bias as well. Now trying to guess wines blind is a whole another topic. While fun, it's not so much an evaluation.

[Roy Hersh]

Don't everybody jump in at once.

[Miguel Simoes]

If nothing else, blind ensures to all that the ratings are impartial.
The person rating it can argue it doesn't matter, but the ones on the receiving end of the ratings find solace in knowing so. I know I do.
Especially when rating several wines not tasted before, like a new vintage crop, I find it gives credibility and ensures all wines were looked at in the same footing.

[Glenn E.]

It does matter. Numerous blind tastings that we've done, when compared to ratings produced from sighted tasting(s), prove that the only way to get completely unbiased ratings is in a blind tasting. Everyone is susceptible to label bias. Some are better at adjusting for it, but even those people are still affected.

Taylor Fladgate First Estate handily won the Ruby Reserve Taste-Off. It wasn't even close - it ran away with the title across 6 tastings worldwide. That never would have happened had the tastings been sighted.

Ferreira's Duque de Braganca 20-yr old Tawny placed 5th at the 20-yr old Tawny taste-off. Again, there's no way that would have happened had the tasting been sighted. It might not have won, but I find it completely inconceivable that it would have finished 5th. Too many people at the tasting have it in their top 3 if not their outright favorite.

I freely admit that I am very susceptible to label bias. If I know which is which, I'm virtually guaranteed to "like" my known favorites better than the rest. Blind tastings often give me pleasant surprises - new favorites that I didn't know I had because I'd never given them the chance.

That doesn't mean that I think all tastings should be blind. Blind tastings are hard work for the tasters. You have to really concentrate in order to produce good notes and meaningful ratings. So I think it's perfectly fine for casual tastings to be held sighted.

But if you want meaningful, valid results, blind is the only way to go.

[Eric C]

I think it has been proved many times over, that the vast majority of people is biased by labels / names. Therefore, only a blind tasting is serious business

[Bradley Bogdan]

We had an excellent example of this at the 1983 VP tasting last night, where multiple producers that are less favored by some of the attendees garnered some big scores/love blind that they likely wouldn't have if they were non-blind.

[BEN BBB]

I can because my lack of knowledge about the different brands.

Also for me, the more premium the brand/price the more I demand from it.

[Moses Botbol]

It does matter. Numerous blind tastings that we've done, when compared to ratings produced from sighted tasting(s), prove that the only way to get completely unbiased ratings is in a blind tasting. Everyone is susceptible to label bias. Some are better at adjusting for it, but even those people are still affected.

In a pure sense it does matter. How less can lesser names get a fair shake? Practical sense, maybe not so much. I love it when a smaller shipper shows up swinging.

[Derek T.]

I think it depends on the circumstances of the tasting.

If the objective is to pick the wine you enjoy the most in a particular line-up then blind is the way to go.

But if you are visiting Hummfy Dummfy & Co of Oporto to taste their wines and they put their (past its best) 1878 alongside their (at its prime) 1970 in front of you it helps to know what they are so that you can put the experience in context.

There are many grades between those examples and some will lend themselves to blind and some will not. The trick is to learn to enjoy both

[Al B.]

I feel a theme for a tasting coming over me.

Flight 1: 4-5 ports - tasted, notes recorded, preferences established but identities remain hidden.
Flight 2: the same 4-5 ports sighted

The preferences are then compared and the identities of the first flight revealed.

Perhaps slightly mischevious, but could be fun.

[Moses Botbol]

I feel a theme for a tasting coming over me.

Flight 1: 4-5 ports - tasted, notes recorded, preferences established but identities remain hidden.
Flight 2: the same 4-5 ports sighted

The preferences are then compared and the identities of the first flight revealed.

Perhaps slightly mischevious, but could be fun.

Good one. I'd make flight 2, flight 3 and for flight 2, 4-5 ports that are totally different just to confuse the senses some between the unsighted and sighted flights.

[John F. Newman]

I feel a theme for a tasting coming over me.

Flight 1: 4-5 ports - tasted, notes recorded, preferences established but identities remain hidden.
Flight 2: the same 4-5 ports sighted

The preferences are then compared and the identities of the first flight revealed.

Perhaps slightly mischevious, but could be fun.

Good one. I'd make flight 2, flight 3 and for flight 2, 4-5 ports that are totally different just to confuse the senses some between the unsighted and sighted flights.

But the people couldn't know that the 2nd flight had the same ports, or even think that it was being done that way (perhaps done on 2 separate days to really throw them off). Otherwise, they'd be trying to guess which port on Flight 2 (or 3 with Moses) matched up to the prior flights.

Perhaps giving this testing in a lab coat might help. lol.

[Glenn E.]

I feel a theme for a tasting coming over me.

Flight 1: 4-5 ports - tasted, notes recorded, preferences established but identities remain hidden.
Flight 2: the same 4-5 ports sighted

The preferences are then compared and the identities of the first flight revealed.

Perhaps slightly mischevious, but could be fun.

I like!

I assume you're pouring 2 glasses for each person out of the same bottle so that there can be no bottle variation affecting the results?

I think that the Ports would need to be approaching maturity but not over the hill. The intent being to make it as difficult as possible to identify which Port is which simply from color. Too young and the palate gets blurred, at least for me.

[Derek T.]

This seems like a perfect tasting to use these...

4100_60brb.jpg (10.7 KiB) Viewed 2812 times

[Mark Clancy]

I am a big fan of blind tastings, but in small doses. By that I mean I like to start with a few blind bottles to start and then move to an "announced" list there after and reveal the blind bottles as soon as notes and thoughts are compiled. The reason for this is in the events I have attended or held there are always a few folks intimiated by blind tastings especailly with people who have more experience than they do and it can make it competitive rather than fun. Obviously it depends entirely on who is present and what they like for an event.


-Mark

[Roy Hersh]

Glenn wrote:

I freely admit that I am very susceptible to label bias. If I know which is which, I'm virtually guaranteed to "like" my known favorites better than the rest.

Didn't you mean this, Glenn?: I freely admit that I am very susceptible to label bias. If I know which is which is my bottle, I'm virtually guaranteed to "like" it better than the rest.

[Roy Hersh]

Derek wrote:

But if you are visiting Hummfy Dummfy & Co of Oporto to taste their wines and they put their (past its best) 1878 alongside their (at its prime) 1970 in front of you it helps to know what they are so that you can put the experience in context.

Yes, this reminds me of a famous moment in the UK, where an oxidized bottle of 1927 Fonseca was served blind to a "Port critic" BLIND, in front of a group. When he evaluated the glass before him (me), it was nearly identical to the very good 1975 Ferreira he had a few days earlier when visiting Ferreira. Nonetheless, the other guests in the room found it hilarious that he could possibly be guessing so wildly off with a difference of 48 years.

Then again, two weeks ago, I had a Fonseca 1927 VP for the second time and the bottle was nearly identical to the one Tom had opened a few years earlier. I jokingly guessed it to be 1975 Ferreira and only one person in attendance understood the reference and laughed. The others looked more like this:

[Roy Hersh]

Al B. wrote:
Perhaps slightly mischevious, but could be fun.

Alex, the only thing that would be "unfair" about a tasting of that nature would be the huge likelihood of significant bottle variation making a blind VP comparative tasting less than objective, unless they were fairly recent bottles ... say 1994's and younger.

A fairer way to do this would be to open up one 750 ml and pour half of it into another random empty bottle and sticking a coded label on the bottom of it and not letting anyone else at the tasting know which is which. Glenn uses a similar technique which is very effective.

[Roy Hersh]

So do you care if a critic is evaluating the next great vintage of Port, blind or sighted from cask samples or just finished bottles? (say ... 2011)

Because if you all don't really care, you'd save me a hell of a lot of work next month and throughout the rest of this year!

Nobody is going to provide a tougher answer to this question than this crew!!!