`Sniff, sip and spit!” Thus does a twinkle-eyed Bob Thompson, wine educator, author and one of America’s most experienced tasters, sum up his work as a judge at wine competitions.
There’s a lot more to it than that, I reaffirmed by joining Thompson and three others as judges at the annual Northwest Enological Society competition in Seattle earlier this month. Over two long days, the five of us tasted and discussed about 195 wines from Washington State and Oregon and awarded 92 medals, only seven of them gold. (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wine columnist later described the judges as “notoriously stingy.”)
Additional exposure to judging at this year’s Indiana State Fair and Oregon State Fair provided definitive evidence that there are very few absolutes in people’s sensory response to wine, the most complex and intriguing of beverages. Time and again, judges’ reactions to a wine varied widely.
Only wines produced in Oregon are considered in the Oregon judging, conducted in Salem. Five of us tasted 161 wines over two days and did two best-of-show tastings as well. The Indiana event, in Indianapolis, is an international competition. As a member of one of six judging panels, I sampled 255 wines over two days.
(People snicker at the association of Indiana and wine. But with submissions jumping from 1,200 in 1995 to 1,700 this year, the fair has become a major player in the wine judging game. Only three other competitions, all on the West Coast, attract more wines. Reflecting Midwestern vineyard plantings and taste, Indiana attracts many wines made from European hybrid and native American grapes. An amateur winemaker category attracted 400 entries.)
I came away from the three events with purple teeth, enormous respect for my fellow judges and explanations to several questions.
Why wine competitions?
The most obvious reason at county and state fairs, where awards are given for fine specimens of everything from pigs to pies, is to honor superior farming and winemaking.
Jerry Mead, founder of the Orange County Fair wine competition in the mid-1970s and a judge at Indianapolis, believes the strategic purpose of these competitions is to encourage consumers to “try (award-winning) wines they do not know” and concurrently elevate standards within the industry by singling out wines and styles of winemaking worth emulating.
The judges
There are no full-time wine judges and there is no certification program to train them. A panel of judges can include winemakers and winery owners, wine educators and wine scientists, sommeliers and restaurant owners, retailers, journalists and experienced tasters recommended to the coordinator. The current fashion is to mix representatives of these disciplines to obtain a wider perspective than would be provided by, for instance, a panel made up exclusively of technically oriented winemakers.
“I try to put articulate, sensitive people together who will `synergize,’ who will be drawn to the positive,” says Richard Vine, director of Purdue University’s viticulture program and coordinator of the Indiana judging. “My only rule is to never have a husband and wife on the same panel.”
Reasons for judging
Not for money. Reimbursement for expenses is the usual compensation. Instead, Philip Ward, a wine importer, does it for “education,” to taste wines unfamiliar to him, and also to meet other judges. Michel Pascal, a Michigan retailer, has a mission. He wants to energize producers to promote the best wines from hybrid grapes, often sold only from winery tasting rooms. Others return to the larger tastings year after year for the camaraderie of a getaway with people who share their passion for wine. (“Summer camp,” some of them call it.)
Tasting by panels
The tasting panels are set up to give a consensus. To gain a medal, a wine must win three votes or more from a five-judge panel at the bronze, silver or gold level. If a wine is not downright brilliant or defective, that result can be as much the outcome of negotiation and compromise as of taste analysis.
Odd-numbered panels are favored to avoid tie vote deadlocks. Five is a practical number. The possibility of one person dominating is strong with a three-judge panel, while logistics become more difficult if the panel grows to seven.
The process of judging
Wines, usually of the same grape type, are presented in a group or in several flights, depending on the number in the category. Each glass contains a code number. If a category consists of a dozen or fewer wines, medals are voted immediately. If the category is large, first-round votes winnow the field for a repeat tasting of the survivors.
This is real work. Wine tasting requires concerted concentration, with only sips of water and bites of bread or crackers to revive the palate during morning and afternoon sessions that may last four hours or longer. One is genuinely tired at day’s end.
Each judge records comments and a tentative ranking to all the wines in a flight. Then, in open discussion, judges advocate a high ranking or prosecute the wine for perceived flaws.
Consumers intimidated by the concept that there are absolute rights and wrongs would be relieved to observe the degree of disagreement among these skilled tasters. Changing votes because of enlightenment, a spirit of compromise or merely to get on with it occurs frequently; across-the-board agreement is rare.
Insecurity and inexperience often lead judges to bunch their votes in the high bronze or low silver range and shy away from walking out on a limb with a gold vote, or from cutting off the limb on which the wine rests with a no-award vote.
A judge can find himself wildly out of step with his colleagues and begin to doubt his judgment. This usually rights itself as the voting continues. But there are horror stories of judges being asked to leave panels, or of judges whose egos exceed their credentials playing dictator and intimidating fellow panelists into voting their way. (Incidentally, short of calling for a repour, discussing a wine before a vote is taken is verboten.)
The best panels exhibit a willing sharing of opinion, some in-depth commentary and the leavening of humor. In Seattle, to promote fairness, not only did each judge sample wines in a different order, but a pair of volunteer “silent” judges, one a winemaker from Oregon and another from Washington, participated in the tasting. They were called upon to ask or answer questions after each flight, but only after voting was completed.
Unanswered questions
Should wine be judged on a world-class standard or against its peers at the tasting? Should wine be rewarded for taste appeal or should the measure be fulfilling stylistic definitions–subjective satisfaction versus technical correctness?
Answers are elusive and written guidelines non-existent. The connoisseur may find promise in the young, inky, tannin-laced red wine that coats the teeth and tastes like medicine. But for the restaurateur, “It’s gotta be ready to go,” declares Indiana consultant Bob Swanson.
Sometimes cheese or cooked beef is available to mitigate the effect of tannin. The reaction when wine and cheese meet, which usually benefits the wine, reminds one that ratings based on wine tastings are academic. Most wines will be consumed with food and will taste quite different. Their relative quality should remain constant, however.
The winners
The best-of-show wines in the three competitions: in Indiana, the 1994 Casa Lapostolle Merlot from Chile; in the Northwest, the 1994 Seven Hills Winery Walla Walla Valley Oregon Merlot; in Oregon, the 1994 Hinman Vineyards Chardonnay and 1994 Tualatin Vineyards Pinot Noir Private Reserve. None is available in Chicago.
