All wines have a window of drinkability, beyond which they will be in a state of decline, either slow or rapid, the latter particularly in the case of low quality wines. Within the window of drinkability, there will, in the case of high‐quality wines, be a period when a wine is at its peak, in perfect balance and expressing complex tones that almost defy description. The tertiary characteristics will be fully developed, and the length of finish will be at a maximum. Unfortunately, there can be a disparity in the peak of drinkability between individual bottles of the same wine, sometimes due to the efficiency of the closure, but also if the storage temperature and other conditions have been inconsistent. As wines decline, the fruit will start to dry out. Richness will fade, oxidative and vegetal characteristics may overwhelm, bitterness comes to the fore, and the length of finish diminish. A decrepit wine may show high levels of oxidation and other faults. There are numerous factors the taster might consider in reaching an assessment as to where a wine is in its life‐cycle including development on the nose and palate, structure, balance, concentration, complexity, and length.
2.10 Grading Wine – The Award of Points
2.10.1 Is the Awarding of Points Appropriate for Wines?
The grading of wine is a controversial topic. Some claim that wines cannot be assessed by scoring points or on star scale and that the whole tasting process should be qualitative, not quantitative. Wine crosses the boundaries of art and science, and the exciting and complex characteristics of quality wines cannot be reduced to mere numbers. Countering this argument, many critics point out that to show which wines are superior to others, they have to be rated on some scale. Critics of musical performances or theatre often give star ratings, as do restaurant inspectors, reviewers of cars, washing machines and pretty much everything marketable. However, an opera critic would not dream of rating Puccini's La Traviata 99 points, and Tosca 98, or rate an individual performance on such a fine scale. Of course, for the less knowledgeable consumer (or investor), knowing how well a wine has been scored makes the buying decision easier.
2.10.2 The Systems in Use
There are several different grading systems in use. Historically, a 0–7 scoring scale was often used, and of course, star ratings, from 0 to 5 stars remain a popular system. To many critics, the use of simple scales such as these means that expression cannot be given to the perhaps significant differences in quality between wines within one of the grading bands. Accordingly, the preferred systems now mark the wines out of 100 or out of 20 (possibly including fractions). The marks can, if deemed appropriate, be translated into a star rating, or descriptive band, e.g. ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Highly Recommended’. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses. The scores given can be a sum of the individual scores for appearance, nose, palate, conclusions, etc., and in which case, the assessor will mark within a framework or can be an overall score. Critics of the former method point out that simply adding the scores means that glaring weaknesses or flaws in one section can result in a wine still being scored rather highly. If scores are useful at all, it is only to people who understand the system. As much as low scores are not used in marketing materials, to the uninitiated, a score of 75 out of 100 would equate to 15 out of 20, and both would seem very good!
2.10.3 Nothing but a Snapshot Reflecting a Moment in Time
A couple of personal anecdotes will illustrate that the award of points or medals are little more than an illustration of how a wine is perceived at the time it was assessed. In April 2020, I escaped COVID‐19 lockdown to buy essential goods. The bottles of 2016 ‘Côtes de Bourg’ from a Petit Château look appealing on the shelf of my local Super‐U supermarket. The price is right, and hey – they bear a sticker proclaiming that the wine scored 90 points in the 2018 Decanter World Wine Awards: a Silver Medal. I buy three bottles, taken from an unopened box. I give them a few days to rest, open a bottle, and even before I can pour a glass, I can smell the unmistakeable odours of oxidation. I check the closure – a Diam technical cork, and this seems fine. Let's open another bottle – just the same. And so is the third. There are no signs of the wine being poorly stored. Assuming the Decanter assessment panel was competent, they made snapshot judgements of the wine. At the time in its life‐cycle that I would have expected the wine to be in top order, it was undrinkable. A similar situation had happened to me in the UK a couple of months earlier, with a 2017 South Australian Shiraz, a Trophy winner in the 2019 International Wine Challenge. When I twisted the screw‐cap, on this occasion, it was the ‘reduced’ nose of garlic that screamed out and did not dissipate with aeration in the glass. I could only reflect with sadness that the unwitting consumer was excitedly buying award‐winning, faulty wines.
2.11 Blind Tasting
2.11.1 Why Taste Blind?
Tasting wines ‘blind’ without the taster being given some or all the information about their identity is regarded as the most ‘objective’ way to assess wine. Blind tasting is also the best way of improving tasting technique, making the tasters rely on their individual perceptions and apply their individual descriptors. It is a valuable means of expanding the memory bank, particularly about the relationship between the descriptors and the type of wine tasted. Depending on the objectives, the taster may have absolutely no information, or maybe given certain relevant details, e.g. the wines are all Burgundies, are all made from one particular variety or are all in a certain price range. In other words, the wines are semi‐specified. An alternative approach, sometimes called ‘single blind’, is when the details of the wines to be tasted are revealed beforehand, but not the order of tasting. Such frameworks can help concentrate the mind in evaluating wines for their quality, typicity, style, and maturity.
2.11.2 Blind or Sighted?
There is no doubt that knowing the identity of the wine to be tasted impacts a taster's perception. There are good reasons why the taster might wish to know the details of the wine being tasted. First, the wine is immediately placed in context, including location within a region, i.e. the sense of place, and the characteristics of the vintage in question. What may be considered a flaw may be explained by the context, including geographical location. For example, many Italian red wines possess high levels of volatile acidity, which is part of their Italian identity. Second, knowledge of the region and/or producer, e.g. their production methods and ‘philosophy’, can help the taster understand the wine. As discussed in the Introduction, wines from some regions and producers display characteristics that might be regarded as faults or flaws in other wines. Third, knowledge of a wine will help the taster place it at a particular point in its life‐cycle. Is it at its best? What is the potential to age based on the reputation of the producer, region, and vintage?
2.11.3 Tasting for Quality
It can be argued that only by tasting blind can the taster come anywhere near to an objective assessment. This is especially important when, considering the factors that reveal quality, including complexity, balance, and length, as the taster is divorced from being influenced by preconceptions. If the purpose of the tasting is to judge relative qualities, the wines chosen for the event should be comparable from this point of view, and in the broadest sense be stylistically similar. As we have seen, there is no point in trying to judge the quality of a Beaujolais against a cru classé Bordeaux.
2.12 Final Reflections
I have used the word objective a few times in this chapter, referring to the approach that a taster should use when assessing a wine. However, a taster should recognise that objectivity is a noble ideal, but one that is impossible to achieve. We are all influenced by our history, education, training, culture, and a hundred and one other factors. We may try to eliminate bias and prejudices and to avoid stereotyping, but
