medals: do we care?

So, in a recent beauty contest...there were no winners!

"Cwdjrx _" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3174.bay.webtv.net...

Not for the individual vineyard... The regional public wine organizations award medals to tested wines solely based on points given. Using a 20 point scale, minimum 19 is required for a gold medal, 18 for a silver and 17 for a bronze. (Some higher qualities require somewhat higher point levels) Wines that have received a regional medal may then be submitted to the national board (DLG) for another, a little more stringent evaluation. Receiving a regional silver or bronze medal is a bit pedestrian, in my experience, a DLG award on the other hand is more indicative of quality. However, quite a number of vintners, especially the very best ones, don't bother with seeking medals - they know (or think) that their wines are truly excellent...! So, the lack of a medal mention on a German bottle does not at all indicate an inferior wine! Anders

Sure - I admit I'm thinking of primarily New World wines. Medals just haven't meant much to me, since they're fairly abstract (bronze, silver, gold). There's nothing in terms of tasting notes or comments associated with the medal and that makes it useless for me, and I haven't really found an organization that awards medals in California that seems to mean a lot.

Dana

"Cwdjrx _" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3174.bay.webtv.net...

Yes I am aware of how the various German medal-granting organizations grant their medals on a point rating scale and that a very obscure wine could win a medal in some year. Your details may prove useful for many, since German wine laws and customs are rather complicated. ...

That was my intention... :-) .... I would think that medals would be most helpful for growers who have greatly improved the quailty of their wine recently or who are from regions that are not noted for outstanding wine in general.

We are in agreement.

Anders

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:45:30 +0100, Emery Davis responded:

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree. It seems to me that there are two kinds of wine tastings, not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some may not agree with this distinction, and I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I think it forms a useful frame of reference. One type would typically involve an attempt to evaluate the quality (or varietal expression, or whatever) of a large number of wines. (What I believe you mean when you refer to "a serious amount of wine tasting.") Here, consumption of even a small amount of each wine is out of the question, so one learns to do the best one can without swallowing. I never have the opportunity to engage in such tastings and probably would refuse even if given the opportunity. Wine to me is fun and this is not my idea of fun. The "other" type of tasting would typically involve a much smaller number of wines and would typically be conducted with the thought in mind "Is this a wine that I would like to buy and serve at a dinner that I'm planning?" This is the type of tasting that I was referring to when I mentioned my need to swallow a small amount of each wine. Perhaps it is possible for an experienced taster to evaluate the finish of a wine without swallowing any of it, but that's a skill that I don't possess.

Vino

"No offense to Bob Foster or any other judge here,..."

No offense taken at all. A single medal means little to me unless I've actually tasted the wine. What I tend to do is look for patterns. For example if a wine has been entered in 6 competitions and taken 5 golds and a silver, I take that as an indicator that I need to try the wine and decide for myself. For example, the 2001 Geyser Peak Block Collection Kumuleis (sp?) is the most awarded cab of this year's set of Calif competitions. It took 7 golds (as best I recall) I bought a bottle, loved it and then bought more. So even for me it is just a guide of what to try and decide for myself.

Hi Emery,

exactly. If 90% of the chardonnays had been under Stelvin.. 11 out of 17 would suggest that Stelvin was less than ideal for the cepage.

But like you, I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

Yes, at least in so far as corked wines. I haven't seen any studies which link time under cork to TCA.

All the best Ian

Ian & Emery mused.....

Patience, patience,

I have inquired of the Wine Institute re ratios and am awaiting reply, but no joy as yet.

I suppose I could manually tabulate from the published results of gold, silver and bronze winners, and may do so if I find an idle moment (my name isn't Hoare!!!)

If "the marketplace" is anything to do by, then 90% of aromatic varietals, and Sauvignon Blanc are now bottled under stelvin, with probably something like 50% of chardonnay, and 30-35% of reds.

The surprising thing about the results I published were the reds.

btw Ian, the champion wine of the show was a Villa Maria Reserve Pinot Noir

2003 (remember, we tried their very first release at the winery in Auckland?

You don't need studies. That's a question of minutes if not seconds.

Some time ago I brought home half a bottle of red from a tasting I conducted in the vicinity (10 minutes walk). By mistake I stoppered it with the only TCA infected cork of that tasting. I carried the bottle upright, so there was no contact of wine with the cork. Back home, tasted immediately upon arrival, the wine was heavily corked.

M.

[] ] > Also, for young wines, would it make much difference? (Ducking). ] ] Yes, at least in so far as corked wines. I haven't seen any studies which ] link time under cork to TCA. ]

Hi Ian et al,

What I was getting at was not that young wines wouldn't be corked, just that obviously corked wines would be eliminated from the competition anyway. Where as for older wines the question of aging under stelvin vs. under cork comes into play.

Rather sloppy thinking on my part anyway, as of course eliminating cork finished bottles only serves to favor the stelvin side, statistically.

-E []