The wine delusion

and winemakers. Peoples’ tendency to default to others opinion explains the popularity of
critic ratings and reviews despite economics research (Thornton, 2013), which is working
to undercut the value of expert authority by revealing its blatant inconsistencies (Goldstein,
2008). Goldstein (cited in Berdik, 2012) believes that recommendations need to be
‘starting points’ not ‘ending points’ put to further testing. Trying to figure out our real wine
preferences does take time. But that doesn’t mean people should fall prey to the
pseudo­preferences of critics. Which Goldstein (cited in Berdik, 2012) sums up tastefully,
‘There’s a huge amount of bullshit in the wine world.’ Which takes us to the third argument
in his manifesto, blind tasting is the only way to find out our true preference (Goldstein,
2008). Just not the type blind tasting experts seem to follow.
Intuition versus data
A Paso Robles winery once sent the same wine to a wine competition under three
different labels. One was rejected as ‘undrinkable’, the other won a double gold medal
(Sutherland, 2013). The State Fair competition in California is the world's biggest in wine
judging. Its judges taste wine blindly, free from expectations, fortunately, staying true to
Goldstein’s manifesto. But since 2003, they fatefully agreed to test their consistency, and
report findings in the Journal of Wine Economics. Now, there is overwhelming evidence to
show that their long­term judgements based on blind preferences were inconsistent
(Berdik, 2012). They have repeatedly tried to update, redefine or find new ways to find
consistency in their results. They have tried many times, some half­way through
competitions, to find that elusive consistency. No matter how hard or how many times they
14