Wine tasting: top notes of nonsense?
A four-year study by a Californian vintner has seriously undermined the art of wine tasting, writes Will Storr
If you're in the business of fermenting grapes for money, you're going to want a medal from the California State Fair. A bronze, silver or gold from its wine competition means recognition, esteem and a solid boost to your sales figures. This is not only the oldest judging competition in the United States - it started in 1854 - but also one of the most prestigious. Every year, its 70-strong array of noses and tongues, which belong to many of the best-known critics, sommeliers, academics and winemakers in the nation, pass judgment on about 2,500 bottles.
But how meaningful are their results? A few years ago, a frustrated vintner named Robert Hodgson, who had a background in statistics, thought of a way of testing the testers. He wondered what would happen if he supplied 100 wines for consideration but, without the judges knowing, slipped each wine to them three different times. Would they notice? Surely, with their trained and articulate palates, they'd at least be consistent in how they rated the identical drinks?
Having sought the agreement of the chief judge, G.M. "Pooch" Pucilowski, Hodgson ran his study for four consecutive years. When the results were calculated, they staggered him, disappointed Pooch and infuriated others.
"Some people think I'm wacko," says Hodgson. "Some say I'm full of crap. None is a scientist."
The Hodgson studies have shaken the wine world, calling into doubt the promises of its most elevated masters.
Hodgson is a retired professor of oceanography who developed an interest in wine in his early 30s.
"I'd been making blackberry wine for fun and, in 1967, a friend in Napa Valley put me on to someone who could get grapes," he says. "We drove 500 miles [800 kilometres] in a little Volkswagen, bought 500 pounds of cabernet and made wine."