Wine Reviewed En Masse: update

Update:  Christian of Turn the Screw weighs in on this topic (as only he can - god bless 'im!).  Now, who wants a 73 point Napa Cabernet for Ninety Damn Dollars!?.  Check the comments; because, as an added bonus, the Caveman weighs in on the WS, awards of excellence, and possible retribution for pulling ad money.  Juicy, interesting stuff...

"The wine review methods practiced by major wine publications and many influential wine critics are mightily flawed.  Generally speaking, wines are reviewed en masse.  This means a critic or group of critics get together and taste a host of wines in a short period of time. They’ll taste 40, 60, or even hundreds of wine during a single tasting session.  Are wine critics able to properly evaluate a wine if it is the 59th wine evaluated during a two hour tasting session? I think not.  Sure, the critic may be able to judge the wine to be generally good or generally bad.  But, at this point in the tasting, who honestly believes the critic can discern between an 89-point wine and a 91-point wine?  Imagine the review that Citizen Kane may have received if it had been a critic’s sixteenth film viewing of the day:  “Citizen Kane; it’s a decent film.”

Wine reviewed en masse - Good thing?  Bad thing?  Who cares? 

Discuss.

Comments

[cincinnatiwinegarage]

Two good blog articles that you won't see in the press. That's why I only read blogs. And yes, after 30 wines in an afternnon, my palate is shot and is in no position to judge the difference between an 87 and a 92 Napa Cab. I could probably pick out blind the Two Buck Chuck!

jens at cincinnati wine garage until they shut me down

[beau]

Amen, brother Jens. Don't worry - 'they' can't shut you down. We got your back!