The secret reality of wine competitions. (I was about to say "the dark underbelly of" but it is not really that bad!)
We love wine competitions. And they love our wines. I am a judge, in fact, in three Southern California competitions: the Long Beach Grand Cru, which started as a benefit for the Long Beach Legal Aid Society; the Riverside International, which is also not terribly well known across the country but attracts a very highly qualified collection of judges and a very eclectic array of wines from untraditional growing areas; and the Los Angeles International Wine and Spirits Competition, previously known as the L.A. County Fair Wine Competition before it got a corporate sponsor and upscaled its image, but for many years one of the most prestigious competitions in the United States. Judging in a competition is hard work (how would you like to start your day at 8:30 AM tasting through 40 tannic and of-variable-quality young Cabernet Sauvignons or Petit Syrahs?) but it is a great opportunity to taste a bunch of wines you might otherwise not get to taste, learn from others in the industry, and network.
We also like to see how our wines do in blind-tastings, where there is no influence of the “story” behind the wine, no prejudice for or against a well-known (or unknown) brand, and no preconception (at least at many competitions) based on price.
But, after being a judge on these competitions for more than 10 years, I can also say unequivocally that the results are often unreliable, and occasionally very unreliable. For certain there will always be “mistakes made.”
Yes, we tout our medals, and honestly, despite the above statement, the medals do mean something. But what I think means more than anything is consistency. What we are proud of even more than our Gold Medals is the fact that when we enter a group of wines in a competition, we consistently win medals for nearly all of them. This speaks to the quality of the portfolio even more than a given medal or lack thereof does. Because the process is inherently flawed, and the results somewhat of a crap-shoot.
Why do we say this?
Let me count just some of the ways the process can produce odd results:
1) The judges often taste over 100 wines in a day. Need I say more? Palate fatigue anyone?
2) The judge may not know anything about a particular type of wine, especially one from a region the judge is not very conversant with, and so has no benchmark in his mind against which to judge it. On the other hand, a judge may know too much about the varietal when it comes from a particular region and as a result have a benchmark on his mind that is too rigid and does not allow for regional character, if it is in fact a different region.
3) There are typically 4 judges on a panel.. Maybe one really “gets” a particular wine, or it is a type he particularly understands, but the other judges do not. The one judge is probably right, but he can be outvoted. So a wine that deserves a Gold winds up with a bronze. (Perfect example, our Passito di Pantelleria: Several Master Sommeliers, who have tasted large number of these, have declared the D’Ancona to be the best they have ever tasted. The head of the government agency responsible for Sicilian wines has said off the record that he thinks it is the best one there is. When we taste people on it, they typically swoon. Yet it was not given any medal at Los Angeles, meaning, typically, that the judges considered it flawed. There are only two possible explanations: the judges did not know what to make of it (if you are used to dessert wines in the high-acid, late-harvest German model, and do not understand “Passitos,” you might consider the wine “oxidized,” for example), or there was indeed a flawed bottle, but the judges, not knowing enough what to expect, did not recognize it and call for a backup. One thing is sure: it is a “Best of Class” wine if there ever was one.)
4) Again, perhaps the judges don’t have experience with that type of wine. They recognize it is made well, but don’t know if it is “as good as it gets” so, afraid to stick their necks out, they give it a Bronze or Silver rather than a Gold
5) The glasses are not large. More complex wines typically need the extra breathing room to show themselves, so often simpler, fruit-forward wines do better than more complex wines. See also point one. The thing competitions are best at is weeding out bad wine. They are less reliable at judging complexity.
6) You have only a few seconds per wine, really (see point number one). The real best way to evaluate a wine is to re- taste it over a period of hours. That’s not going to happen.
7) Good wine is usually made to go with food. There isn’t any, (other than some bread, and some cheese or occasionally Graber olives for palate refreshers or to cut the tannins). The best way to appreciate wine is usually over dinner, (and paired properly). Not happening.
Really great wine often needs time to open up. The wine may be presented to the judges before it has.
All of the above taken together suggest that there are many reasons a wine might be missed and given no award even if it is deserving. Or why any individual wine, if basically sound, might get a higher or lower medal than perhaps it “deserves.” That is why we feel that the most significant sign of the quality of our portfolio has been the high percentage of medals we have always received. At the San Francisco Intl. Wine Competition (the oldest and most prestigious wine competition in the US) we got medals this year for 14 out of 17 entries. At LA it was 11 out of 14. We have seen similar results in other competitions and in past years. We are, frankly, very proud of that…
OK, now you can forget all of what I just said, and express appropriate congratulations for our Double-Gold (at SF) and Platinum (at LA) and Chairmans Award (at Riverside) winning wines!
- Steve