Label bias

[jdaw1]

At the recent 1963 horizontal I did not vote the NN63 in my top three of the weekend.

At and after the event it was suggested that those who did might have had ‟label bias”. At the event it was suggested that those who didn’t might have been trying to avoid the appearance of label bias.

Having pondered these comments, I have realised that there are at least three types of label bias.

1 (‟The fool”). Label says expensive or reputable or both. Therefore think highly of wine, and vote accordingly.

2 (‟Narcissus”). Label says expensive or reputable or both. Therefore claim not to think highly of wine, in order to show that one doesn’t have label bias (even though actually showing only that one doesn’t have type-1 label bias).

3 (‟Relativity”). Assume comparing two wines. One has a label that says expensive or reputable or both. The other doesn’t. The one is marginally the better wine, but under-performing reputation. The other marginally worse, but greatly out-performing reputation or expectation. Vote for the other really voting by ‘relative to reputation’, rather than absolute merit.

I don’t think I have type 1, nor type 2. Dissent welcomed. But I’m not sure whether I have type 3.

Are there other types of label bias? And does anybody wish to own up to any of these sins?

[DRT]

My name is Derek, and I have Type 3 label bias.

[g-man]

How about those who finding the label attractive thinks it merits more points.

[djewesbury]

I believe that one person can exhibit all three biases, depending on the wines, the company and the social circumstances.

A famous French sociologist wrote about 'cultural capital'. There are those who have it ('it' being the advantages conferred by educational and social privileges and opportunities, and so on) and who are very keen to demonstrate that they have it; they are probably typical Type-1. Those who are anxious that they should somehow disavow or renounce it (a silly thing to try, like pretending you weren't born with two feet) are probably Type-2: excessively compensating 'egalitarians' who know enough to know that they want to prove, loudly, what nonsense it all is.

But what is Type-3? A mealy-mouthed compromise. A failure to move beyond either previous position..

So what, precisely, is the unbiased position? Faced with a bottle of NN63 and the knowledge to understand what it is, how can one fail to fall into one of the three traps outlined?

The only answer is silver foil.

[DRT]

The only answer is silver foil.

Correct.

[jdaw1]

The only answer is silver foil.

Tin foil would surely suffice.

But even that has a big problem. It is not blind to the person who wrapped it. One can make things blind to everybody, or at least less well sighted. But that entails an intricate choreography of people being in and out of rooms, of decanters, and layers of labelling. It is more difficult, more complicated, and less robust. And even more so at a multi-session tasting we have never maintained blindness past the end of a session.

So the answer is to be able to afford silver foil and a butler and two under-butlers, to arrange everything for us.

[djewesbury]

The only answer is silver foil.

Tin foil would surely suffice.

So the answer is to be able to afford silver foil and a butler and two under-butlers, to arrange everything for us.

The butlers were implicit in my choice of silver foil. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

[LGTrotter]

I was thinking of liminality, in the sense of passing through some ritual as helping to describe the types of port drinker, rather than the more static ‘cultural capital’ idea. Even those with cultural capital need to be inculcated into the rituals of port. In my small experience those with the most ‘cultural capital’ have been the worst offenders of bias 1.
Bias 2 is less clear to me, perhaps this is reserved for those in the liminal state, ie those who have not yet passed through the ritual to an initiated state and stand upon the threshold.
I take a more prosaic view of bias 3; value for money, Nacional 63 may indeed be a very good wine, but I haven’t bought one yet because hell has not frozen over, the idea of spending over £4000 on a bottle of port is inexplicable to me. Having bought a goodly stash of Warre ’80 at very reasonable prices I think that bias 3 is explained by the smug feeling that comes from spending wisely. Financial capital that is, rather than cultural capital.

[djewesbury]

I agree and disagree. Bias 1, as you describe, is what I described. But I believe that those who are able to invert that position and display Bias 2 are already 'over the threshold'; they just prefer to show their 'individuality' by refusing to concur with those acclaiming the self-evident goodness of the Thing being examined (eg, NN63).

Bias 3: yes. I agree with this because to me, there is a clear, if loose, 'value chain' in terms of most port, whereby exchange-value can, in theory, be pegged to use-value. SW77 is acknowledged good port and commands a certain price but nothing above that because people know that for the extra they can buy something even 'better'. When we move out of the foothills of the value chain, however, exchange-value becomes linked to 'monopoly': that is, to exclusivity and, crucially, the perception of exclusivity. I can understand a port being 'better' than another and that translating into an exchange-value that is agreed (by all in the market) at £50, £100 or £200 more than that other. That relative superiority of the port goes beyond this sort of rationality though, once you deal with NN63 or similar (of course, nothing could possibly be similar to NN63 but there you are). I just don't understand how a port can really be thousands of pounds 'better'; and I don't really believe it can be.

[djewesbury]

Further thought, on reflection and after conversation. Bias 1 is also based on accepting a contract, breach of which would adversely affect oneself. X accepts the price of NN63, because he knows you have to pay for Things as rare and special as this. It would be pretty silly to admit that it wasn't worth it after all.

I think Bias 3 is not really a bias; it is rational - the assertion that something doesn't transcend the usual comparison and evaluation just because it is rare and special.

[LGTrotter]

I suspect you disagree because that is the kind of man you are; and rather marvelous it is too. I particularly like the backing up of the 'cultural capital' of Bourdieu with the phenomenology of Husserl in thinking about the 'thing'.

I find 'the market force' stuff much more humdrum albeit there is an obvious relationship here. However there are us 'bias 3' type buyers who try to look for the anomolies in this geometric relationship between quality, supply and demand, they are out there.

I too should like to disagree (cos I'm a bit like that too) with some of what you have said but I have to go and pick apples.

[djewesbury]

Orleans Reinette?

[LGTrotter]

Ashmeads kernel and rosemary russet. The Orleans karked it last year, boo.

[djewesbury]

Ashmeads kernel and rosemary russet. The Orleans karked it last year, boo.

Shame. Plant a new one. Ashmeads kernel is a good one though. Mind you that could be my Type-1 bias!

[LGTrotter]

Further thought, on reflection and after conversation.

I am agog to learn where you found someone to converse with on liminality, Bourdieu and the bias of port labels. You have rich gravy indeed in which to stew.

I was also thinking that never having tried a Nacional 63 I am spared the terrible knowledge of how great a wine it is. Surely this is some kind of bias, the refusal to accept knowledge from which there is no going back.

How about those who finding the label attractive thinks it merits more points.

There are wine labels which I find attractive, less so with port. I do find the sight of a Grahams label comforting though.

[djewesbury]

Oh yes very rich gravy indeed here.

A further thought. The NN82 sounds like quite an average port by any standards, based on reading every tasting note I can find (not that scores mean much but it tends to score below 90). And yet because it is NN, the price tag will still be around £300. That must be poor value. It would be interesting to taste and rank this; perhaps just as interesting (intellectually at least) as tasting a really 'phenomenal' NN like the 63.

[djewesbury]

I am sure it's not a refusal to accept knowledge on your part; if NN63 were in front of you I'm convinced you would drink it.

[LGTrotter]

I am sure it's not a refusal to accept knowledge on your part; if NN63 were in front of you I'm convinced you would drink it.

Busted.

Consider it more of a thought experiment.

[AW77]

I would like to add a new dimension to the "Label bias" discussion: vintage.
You talked about producers, but besides the producer the label states the vintage year. I admit that vintage does not matter in a horizontal tasting, but it might matter when judging a wine in a vertical or deciding in a wine shop which bottle to buy. For example: Should I buy the Bomfim 1996 or the 2001? People might use overall ratings of vintage years as a guide for deciding this question. But a generalization of a vintage year might be as biased as is the case with producers. The SQVP of a lesser year might be as good or even better than that of the better year, just because the producer might have blundered in the better year (and not in the lesser) or the weather conditions in the lesser year were not that unfavourable for this single quinta.

[DRT]

Bias 1 is also based on accepting a contract, breach of which would adversely affect oneself. X accepts the price of NN63, because he knows you have to pay for Things as rare and special as this. It would be pretty silly to admit that it wasn't worth it after all.

I think this is a different type of bias to that described by JDAW in his question. The scenario you describe can only apply to the person who bought the bottle, whereas the description (I believe) is aimed at the entire group who have been offered the chance to taste an expensive and/or legendary wine.

In the specific circumstances that prompted this discussion I am entirely confident that the purchaser would have no qualms about admitting that any port was not up to scratch regardless of how much he had paid for it. I know that because I have witnessed him doing so many times.

My comment about suspected label bias in relation to the NN63 was intended to apply across the group assembled that evening, not necessarily including the host. I have been lucky enough to taste this and other legendary ports a number of times in large groups and the reactions of individuals is always fascinating.

[LGTrotter]

A further thought. The NN82 sounds like quite an average port by any standards, based on reading every tasting note I can find (not that scores mean much but it tends to score below 90). And yet because it is NN, the price tag will still be around £300. That must be poor value. It would be interesting to taste and rank this; perhaps just as interesting (intellectually at least) as tasting a really 'phenomenal' NN like the 63.

A further thoought to your further thought; or at least nearly the same thought put differently, I notice a label bias among some against Cockburn, a wine that usually scores poorly but I love it for its intellectual or possibly unique interpretation of port. And the only Nacional I have come close to buying was the 82.

[djewesbury]

I think this is a different type of bias to that described by JDAW in his question. The scenario you describe can only apply to the person who bought the bottle, whereas the description (I believe) is aimed at the entire group who have been offered the chance to taste an expensive and/or legendary wine.

Yes and no. There is also the factor of not wanting to speak out and be the one who says "ew stinky...", for fear of losing standing. But I am generalising and not talking about the group that was gathered at this event...

In the specific circumstances that prompted this discussion I am entirely confident that the purchaser would have no qualms about admitting that any port was not up to scratch regardless of how much he had paid for it. I know that because I have witnessed him doing so many times.

Quite.

[LGTrotter]

I would like to add a new dimension to the "Label bias" discussion: vintage.
You talked about producers, but besides the producer the label states the vintage year. I admit that vintage does not matter in a horizontal tasting, but it might matter when judging a wine in a vertical or deciding in a wine shop which bottle to buy. For example: Should I buy the Bomfim 1996 or the 2001? People might use overall ratings of vintage years as a guide for deciding this question. But a generalization of a vintage year might be as biased as is the case with producers. The SQVP of a lesser year might be as good or even better than that of the better year, just because the producer might have blundered in the better year (and not in the lesser) or the weather conditions in the lesser year were not that unfavourable for this single quinta.

This is the space that label bias allows the wise buyer to sneak into thus;

there are us 'bias 3' type buyers who try to look for the anomolies in this geometric relationship between quality, supply and demand, they are out there.

And I'd go with the 96.

[RAYC]

My gut feeling is that expectation (not just the the "Type 3" reputation bias mentioned above, but also based on prior personal experience) has a lot to do with this.

Aside from label bias, the phenomenon of clusters at one end of the table finding favour with a port that is disliked (or simply unrated) at the other end of the table also happens too frequently for me to believe this is not a factor (this happens even when ports are served in foil).

But - boringly - things can be purely a matter of taste as well. Take the Dolamore 63 - three voted it as their first choice for the Saturday afternoon tasting, whereas eight had it outside their top three. I thought it was a good port, but personally couldn't understand it making the top three. Yet it is not a candidate inviting particular label bias, nor was it in the company of too many other ports inviting particular label bias (Taylor, and perhaps the RO ports excepted). From my memory of the seating plan, those who voted for it were relatively spread out amongst those that didn't. Beyond "some liked it and some loved it", is a theory really needed to explain this?

[jdaw1]

Upon reflection, bias cannot always be prevented by blinding, whether tin-blinding (complicatedly self-blinded) or silver-blinding (by a team of butlers).

I think that NN63 is meaty. Even if you disagree, hypothesise that the fancy schmancy bottle has a distinctive flavour.

Now what if the distinctive bottle is good, but not the best? Even in a fully blind tasting a moderately knowledgeable drinker could still exhibit type-1 label bias.