March Wine Club
For our March meeting we had 38 tasters for our blind tasting of Australian wines plus a few non-tasters. The March meeting was a more casual affair with 2 whites and 2 reds. We had everyone answer the blind tasting question correctly!
Click here to see the April meeting details on our Upcoming Events page.
The Blind Tasting
This month we tasted four wines from Down-Under, two white wines and two red wines. The wines as served are shown below:
First, a bit of an aside. This month we changed over to a 100 point system for rating our wines. Though more complicated, it fits better with the more popularly used systems from Wine Spectator, Wine Advocate, and other rating services. Wine Advocate (Robert Parker's service) lists the criteria for ratings as follows:
Wine Spectator gives their rating guidelines as:
wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. Wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase, and consume.
90 - 95:
wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.
80 - 89:
barely above average to very good
wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.
70 - 79:
wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.
60 - 69:
wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.
50 - 59:
A wine deemed to be unacceptable.
- 95-100 Classic: a great wine
- 90-94 Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style
- 85-89 Very good: a wine with special qualities
- 80-84 Good: a solid, well-made wine
- 75-79 Mediocre: a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws
- 50-74 Not recommended
Well, all rating systems are going to have their advocates (no pun intended) and detractors. At least it gives us a place to start. Note that in both scales there is no rating below 50! I believe this is a way to raise the scale to the scholastic grading scale we are all familiar with while being realistic about bad wines (after all, flunking at a level of 50 probably means you at least showed up).
So, on with the ratings! Purely arbitrarily, I eliminated any scores given below 50. I also eliminated the 3 lowest scores and three highest scores (though this made only a 1 point or so difference in the results).
Wine A (Chateau Tanunda Shiraz)………87 Points
Wine B (Tyrell's Semillon)…………………84 Points
Wine C (William Randell Shiraz)………….85 Points
Wine D (Evans and Tate Chardonnay)….86 Points
Though the ratings were fairly close, some observations on the individual ratings stand out. We had some really bad ratings (under 60) and the white wines received all of them. Were these wines really "unacceptable"? The 2 scores most given were 90 and 80. We had 24, 90 ratings and 24, 80 ratings spread between the 4 wines.
Just to compare, all of the wines (except the Semillon which was not rated) were rated at 90 points or above by someone. Hopefully you kept your scores to compare. But remember, your rating is your rating. You are rating the wines as you perceive them. Their is certainly no right or wrong.
The Food, Folks and Festivities
This month we had 4 door prizes! Thanks to Ruthie Wlocewski and Sharon Weinman for donating a prize! If you have anything you have made that you think would make a good door prize, give us a call.
Here are our March winners (Thanks again to Pat Gougelman for taking her time to immortalize our festivities.):
Here are some of the wines you all brought. Ruthie says she is going to bring a new wine trivia question every month--thanks, Ruthie!
And some of us...
Until Next Time….