There is a lot of BS in that article as well. For example, where he says:
Exhibit B: Expert wine critics can't distinguish between red and white wines
Total BS. If you read the study itself, that is
not what was tested at all and was
not the conclusion. The article gives the impression that wine experts could not tell the difference between a Cabernet and a Chardonnay.
What the study indicated was, if you hand a wine expert a glass of red wine, they evaluate it in terms of a red wine. This really isn't any big surprise, and has a scientific backing as well. I've read (and I believe it to be true from my own experience), that even very experienced tasters can only focus on about 3 flavors at once. So if what you are tasting is complex, with 7 different flavors, you may be drawn to 3 of those seven, and another person to a different 3. But if you mention one of your flavors to the other, they will often pick up on that flavor (and one of their three will fade to the background). So handed a glass of red wine, you focus on the things you associate with a red wine and note them. And those would likely be different from what you would focus on with a white wine. So it isn't surprising to me at all that a white wine colored red would be judged differently from the same wine judged as a white - the judges expectations are different.
As an extreme illustration, imagine I told you you were going to partake in a blind taste test of Chocolate Mousse, but I gave you a taste of sauerkraut. You'd spit it out and say yuck! But if I told you you were tasting sauerkraut (assuming you like sauerkraut as I do), you'd savor it and try to evaluate all those sauer-kraut-y flavors. So in one case the sauerkraut was 'yucky', and in another it had a 'nice balance of sharpness, salt and vegetable'. Does that mean you can't tell the difference between Chocolate Mousse and sauerkraut?! Of course not. It means that in one case you tried to judge the sauerkraut in terms of Chocolate Mousse.
As a less extreme example, if someone asks me to evaluate a Stout they brewed, I'll evaluate it as a Stout. If the ask me to evaluate their Cascadian Dark Ale, which may be as black as a stout, but a very different flavor profile (hoppy, no/little roast), I'll evaluate that as a CDA. You evaluate based on expectations.
... I know I'm in awe of some of the old timers I judge with at events like GABF. ....
You judged at GABF? I was afraid my analytical self would push out the enjoyment side, which is why I didn't go for this last round of BJCP testing; I'm not sure I trust myself to turn that off when I just want to "have a beer". But some day, maybe.
Judging at GABF is the big time all right, very impressive. It's funny though, I don't enjoy formal beer judging at all. Our club members kept trying to get me to study for and take the BJCP exam, claiming I had the palate for it (it takes a lot of study though). I do enjoy it in a more informal setting, in our club we sometimes go through the BJCP score sheet on some beers a member brewed, maybe along a commercial example. That's fun, and we learn a lot. But I have sat in with an experienced judge at our sanctioned competition when we were short of judges, and I hated it. I just can't come up with descriptors for what I'm tasting, and I feel pressure since someone paid an entry fee to have their beer judged, they should get proper feedback. But a lot of people enjoy it.
Cheers! -ERD50
