Neal Martin's rant

[greatbxfreak]

From Facebook:

"Most wine critics run a mile from blind tastings. They expose flaws in your tasting ability as much as flaws in the wine"

My reply - "Neal, I enjoy participating in blind tastings, but I don't receive as many invitations as you do! You are the privileged one. I'd received zero invitations in the past ten years. Some of my wine journalist colleagues could say the same".

I could have written my reply in a more aggressive tone, but I didn't. However, I think Neal Martin's post is a bit disrespectful to his colleagues.

Your thoughts....

[Comte Flaneur]

I’ll start with the caveat that this is a potential hornet’s nest

It is not difficult to understand why some critics would be terrified of blind tastings and go out of their way to avoid them, because it could shred their reputation.

I had a very early experience with this when in 1990 as a 26 yo whippersnapper I attended a single blind tasting of 1982 first growth bordeaux plus PLL.
and LLC. It was hosted by Bidendum wines and some ‘esteemed’ critics were invited to lead the discussion on the wines and what they were. It was embarrassing because none of them picked any of the wines, and worse they had high conviction on their calls such was their arrogance and hubris. The winner of that tasting was Pichon Lalande, in hindsight not a surprise.

The worst thing you can do is have high conviction.

I have been left with egg on my face many times Chez Alex.

Talking of whom, I would say perhaps Alex’s wife Christine is the best blind taster I have met.

https://youtu.be/BfhnnTXGxTg?si=sbKXZuejra4Wcgrz

[DavidG]

Izak, if it were up to me, you’d get invites to all of these.

You’ve quoted two sentences. Was that all that Neal wrote? It didn’t read as a rant to me, but perhaps it comes off as more rant-y when read in its entirety?

I think that well-known critics who make a living at wine writing are wise to avoid public blind tastings if identifying the wine is part of the game. But again, it’s not clear to me if that’s what he was referencing from the brief quote taken out of context. Guessing a wine’s identity is very difficult. It does not necessarily correlate with the ability to describe what one is tasting. But getting it wrong could be bad for a professional critic’s reputation, readership, and income. Not a good risk/benefit ratio.

If rather than guessing identities it’s a question of creating tasting notes and assigning scores, I think a professional critic should be able to produce notes and scores from blind tastings similar to those they generate from tasting known samples. Being wildly off here could also be a reputational risk. But a critic with a reliable palate should have less to fear here - assuming reasonable tasting conditions. If Martin is criticizing fellow wine writers for avoiding these sorts of public blind tastings while he is happy to wade in, it may be a bit aggressive. But it would be a legitimate point. Without reading the entire post, I can’t tell if it’s disrespectful in tone.

As to your reply, I would ask if you are a professional or amateur wine critic. Someone whose livelihood depends on their reputation as a wine critic has a lot more to lose than someone who is an amateur in the literal sense of the word: doing it for love rather than money. In addition to the potential financial consequences, the more well-known the critic the greater the purely reputational consequences. A lesser-known amateur has a lot less to lose than a high-profile professional, so it’s not too difficult for me to see why they might feel differently about doing public blind tastings.