looking for scientific evidence on blind tasting

This will not answer the call for "scientific" evidence, but I can testify that such individual-producer discernments as described in the original post are not at all uncommon among experienced wine-trade and enthusiasts who taste regularly. I've been seeing it for many years, I see it regularly in co-operative blind tasting groups that meet to try new wines on the market. In major vineyards as mentioned, in some regions such as Burgundy there are multiple producers; in Burgundy specifically, they are known for their individual styles. (They routinely discourse in person on this, philosophically and practically, given a chance.) Also, specific cues such as wood in the barrels are picked up by experienced tasters. Individuals vary in their native skill at this, but experience is necessary to anyone. One person I've tasted with regularly for several years has palate memory -- he will identify that he tasted the same wine even long ago, even if he cannot at once identify the wine, and he will be correct (we've checked). I've seen another regular trade taster identify the wood at once and (knowing who uses what) therefore the producer. Lots of experienced tasters like to guess at the wines being tasted blind, for fun, and some of them get it right.

-- Max

This is presumably possible because the range of possibilities is narrowed down so much, and because that range includes a specific area of expertise.

I would not expect someone with a good but non-specialist wine knowledge to be able to perform these feats.

I'll second Max's statement. I've been at multiple blind tastings where folks have nailed a producer or the exact wine. This holds true for Burgundy, Bordeaux, CalCabs, or anything else. Individuals vary in their palates and their palate memories, but as Max said lots of tasting experience is a must. I am not one of the really gifted tasters, and would not want to bet anything on my abilities in a true double-blind test.But in areas that I have some experience, I generally do better than the statistical probability for chance in single-blind tastings where I'm familiar with the producers (for instance, in a Volnay tasting where the wines are blind but I know they include Lafarge, de Montille, d'Angerville, Jadot, Drouhin, Giradin, and Laurent). But I've been at tastings where someone tasted a double-blind wine and correctly announced it was the 1985 Phelps Backus or the 1993 Roumier Bonne Mares. My only time doing that was with the 1991 Beringer Knight's Valley, which happened to be my once-a-month steak wine at the time. Anyone can learn to identify a wine they taste monthly! Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Sometimes, but in my experience the taster starts out with some sort of hint; for example, he knows something about what wines might be in the samples he's tasting.

I'm reminded of the famous Harry Waugh, who once, when asked whether he had ever mistaken a Bordeaux from a Burgundy, replied "not since lunch."

"Steve Slatcher" in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Original poster had asked specifically about discerning (in blind tastings) individual producers within a large vineyard such as Clos de Vougeot; that was the context of my response. There are other axes too along which wines can be identified blind, of course: year, vineyard, etc. The tasters I've watched correctly blind-identifying wines have all had concrete basis for doing so: experience with those and similar wines, knowledge of the producers and their customs, characteristics of recent vintages, and the miscellaneous background intelligence that Yoxall labeled "optional history" and "compulsory geography." (These things are all part of what is customarily called knowing wine. I apologize if that is very obvious, it just seems so different from speaking of a wine in terms of some current critic grading it "94" according to some particular measure.)

-- Max

Sorry but this is a load of crap. You either taste the difference or you don't. Anything else is as lame an excuse as lame excuses come. Confusing white for red is an equivalent of confusing Texas for Cuba only because at passport control you were told "Welcome to Cuba". If you pretend to be an expert on Cuba, it shouldn't matter one bit if you know that you are being duped or not.

DK

Not a good way to make your point on AFW.

There's a difference between tasting blind and actively misleading.

I also doubt whether the taster in the study claimed any wine-tasting expertise.

When tasting a wine blind, the taster is looking for clues- it's partially a matter of narrowing down options. If I start with a glass of red wine, I'm considering PN, CS, Merlot, etc. not Chardonnay. If a literature professor is handed a snippet of text and said "what English writer said this", it's a bit harsh to judge them as a fraud if they don't peg it as a translation of Voltaire. There are very few disciplines where an "expert" couldn't be fooled by deliberate misdirection. BTW, I think after the New Yorker piece by Trillin, WS did a little test. A group of staffers (some tasting pros, some others) were given wine in black tasting cups. Out of about 50 guesses (5 tasters doing 10 or something) there was one mistake (by a staffer who is not an "expert"). Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

I should clarify, there was one mistake as to color (a big chard one staffer guessed was red) Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply