Label bias

[RAYC]

Even if you disagree, hypothesise that the fancy schmancy bottle has a distinctive flavour.

or colour....

So - for a properly impartial tasting - tin foil, under-butlers, black glasses, and a silence rule are required. In the line-up can only be ports that you have not previously tried. Sounds fun.

[jdaw1]

So - for a properly impartial tasting - tin foil, under-butlers, black glasses, and a silence rule are required. In the line-up can only be ports that you have not previously tried. Sounds fun.

Not only not previously tasted, also about which the tasters have no knowledge of their reputation. Have never reading a tasting note. And no ports from houses (in a horizontal) or vintages (in a vertical) with a distinctive signature.

Our policy seems to be that, most importantly, tastings must be fun. We are not paid to work there, typically we pay (bottles or money) to attend. Tastings must be fun. Indeed, industry attendees seem to enjoy them for much the same reason. In so far as possible without compromising the pleasure of attending, we can try to be scientific. But the pleasure is more important than the science. I like that general policy, and encourage its continuation.

But that doesn’t prevent our discussing possible unscientific biases.

[LGTrotter]

is a theory really needed to explain this?

Well no,not really.

But that would be the end of the thread. So I suppose that even if it is pointless there would be some statistical analysis which could be done to show that indeed there was a credible theory to explain both the clustering of opinion in a room and the apparently random spread of it on other occasions.

The broad thrust of RAYC's post is spot on, and is incidently one of my main issues with tastings blind or otherwise; it's all pretty subjective.

And how did fun manage to creep into our deliberations?

[djewesbury]

This is an excellent thread. Very much good sense has been written and I'd venture that we're generally in agreement about the proper balance between fun, informality and attempted objectivity (the aim of which is that some of what we write here might be considered informative, or even, occasionally, edifying).

I will give the butler and both under-butlers the day off for our next meeting (just to see if that affects the outcome).

[LGTrotter]

I will give the butler and both under-butlers the day off for our next meeting (just to see if that affects the outcome).

I heard they were both on zero hours contracts anyway.

[djewesbury]

I will give the butler and both under-butlers the day off for our next meeting (just to see if that affects the outcome).

I heard they were both on zero hours contracts anyway.

Yes, and given to complaining about it too; which somewhat mars one's evening.

[jdaw1]

Should I buy the Bomfim 1996 or the 2001? People might use overall ratings of vintage years as a guide for deciding this question.

To me this seems confused. Two wines, A and B, of similar cost. Which should I buy? If I have no experience myself, I’ll seek a recommendation, which might come in the form of an average score, or a score from somebody I trust. Doing so is entirely efficient and sensible.

But if I taste both, which do I prefer? If my answer uses others’ recommendations and scores, that is label bias. Which is quite different to the previous ¶.

[DRT]

Agreed. I don't think AW77s example is the same as what has been termed label bias in this thread.

I think what AW77 is referencing is a persons tendency to purchase wines based on the reputation of a particular shipper or vintage, probably having never tasted the wine. I think we probably all do that and it is in my view completely logical to do so.

What is being debated here is a persons tendency or otherwise to claim to like or dislike a wine even though they have tasted it, and then consciously or subconsciously ignored the tasting experience and rated it according to its reputation or that of the shipper or vintage. To do so is illogical, but completely understandable.

[jdaw1]

I was thinking of liminality, in the sense of passing through some ritual as helping to describe the types of port drinker

This seems to me to be the wrong model. It is one-dimensional, that dimension being time, there is a stable before, a fluid liminal moment, and then a newly-stable after. But there are people at our tastings with plenty of Rhone-type cultural capital, or Champagne-type, Madeira-type or even tawny-Port-type. They have good palates in their established specialities, but a few might be new to Port. This is, for them, not a new ritual with all sociological gubbins that might be claimed to entail, rather this is a slight variation of a ritual already performed. There is no instability; the new stability is known in advance.

Further, those at the ’63 horizontal had passed through all this three-syllable stuff. At least, if they hadn’t, then the passage is barred.

So the model seems wrong.

Note: when discussing sociological gubbins it is advised to use words like ‟ritual” and ‟perform”. It doesn’t make any of it true, but the ritual of doing so is part of the performance.

[Andy Velebil]

Even if you disagree, hypothesise that the fancy schmancy bottle has a distinctive flavour.

or colour....

So - for a properly impartial tasting - tin foil, under-butlers, black glasses, and a silence rule are required. In the line-up can only be ports that you have not previously tried. Sounds fun.

Color is something that oftens skews peoples perception of a wine, especially in an older line up where one or two are much darker than the others. People see the color and assume it has to be the better Port simply because the color is darker.

[Chris Doty]

I like this topic very much, and believe that most wine tastings should be conducted blind. Obviously, if you're tasting with the producer, or are doing a vertical, you'd make exceptions, but as a general rule, blind and silent tasting helps tasters concentrate on what they enjoy about a given wine, which is how I feel it should be.

As for my personal biases, I would say I demand more from wines with established reputations, and in the event of a close call I tend to find in favor of the more memorable/distinctive wine, even if it may not be 'textbook' or 'complete.' I sometimes use WOTN votes as ways to help reinforce my memory of specific wines, especially in very large tastings, and in instances in which my top 3-5 wines are scored very narrowly.

I look forward to seeing the impact of some double blind / silent tasting at the Doty Cup 2014! Woo woo woo

[JB vintage]

I sometimes use WOTN votes as ways to help reinforce my memory of specific wines,

What is WOTN votes?

[jdaw1]

What is WOTN votes?

Wine Of The Night.

[TLW]

I volunteer to assist in a wide range of scientific trials.

[jdaw1]

Correct facts, wrong logic. We are terrible at guessing. But that doesn’t mean that my or your judgement of ‟do I like this?” is clouded by a label.

[Alex Bridgeman]

But that doesn’t mean that my or your judgement of ‟do I like this?” is clouded by a label.

I agree, but I do wonder whether my answer to the question of "what do I think of this?" might be affected by the label. If I am sipping Croft 1945, I expect to have my socks knocked off. If my socks remain on my feet I would be disappointed by the port. Even though it was an extremely good and enjoyable port I might still be disappointed, while the same experience poured from a bottle of Real Vinicola 1983 would leave me astonished and enthusiastic.

[jdaw1]

I agree, but I do wonder whether my answer to the question of "what do I think of this?" might be affected by the label. If I am sipping Croft 1945, I expect to have my socks knocked off. If my socks remain on my feet I would be disappointed by the port. Even though it was an extremely good and enjoyable port I might still be disappointed, while the same experience poured from a bottle of Real Vinicola 1983 would leave me astonished and enthusiastic.

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.

[djewesbury]

Correct facts, wrong logic. We are terrible at guessing. But that doesn’t mean that my or your judgement of ‟do I like this?” is clouded by a label.

To whom were you replying here?

[jdaw1]

Correct facts, wrong logic. We are terrible at guessing. But that doesn’t mean that my or your judgement of ‟do I like this?” is clouded by a label.

To whom were you replying here?

A previous post that has since been deleted. Moral: always quote the correct extract (but don’t clutter by quoting the whole thing).

[SushiNorth]

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 would plead Rebellious Relativity: A wine with a label that says expensive or reputable must significantly outclass it's lesser peers when placed in the mouth, or face harsher criticism than it rightly deserves.

[LGTrotter]

but as a general rule, blind and silent tasting helps tasters concentrate on what they enjoy about a given wine, which is how I feel it should be.

Although this is true if the sole aim is the analysis of wine I think that to have that much expertise in the room and be silent is a loss. Besides this the place of wine in culture is that it should promote sympathy between people. This sympathy comes out in words and not just about the wine.

I was thinking of liminality, in the sense of passing through some ritual as helping to describe the types of port drinker

This seems to me to be the wrong model. It is one-dimensional, that dimension being time, there is a stable before, a fluid liminal moment, and then a newly-stable after. But there are people at our tastings with plenty of Rhone-type cultural capital, or Champagne-type, Madeira-type or even tawny-Port-type. They have good palates in their established specialities, but a few might be new to Port. This is, for them, not a new ritual with all sociological gubbins that might be claimed to entail, rather this is a slight variation of a ritual already performed. There is no instability; the new stability is known in advance.

I would challenge this view of liminality. It is not an event, it can be considered that people, societies and groups within them remain in these luminal states for periods of time and even go back and forth. There is even the argument that certain groups are liminal in their nature, hermits for instance. I did not intend liminality to be an exact model, but rather a way of thinking about bias. I also maintain that ritual is endemic to the drinking of port over any other wine. There was a nice essay on this sociological gubbins by Suzette Heald which I can't find a reference for now.