From time to time all wine tasters may give different scores or ratings to the same vintage of the same wine. The reasons for this are numerous, but some of the variables involved include wine temperature, room temperature, the age of the wine relative to other wines in the tasting, bottle condition (which does not mean obvious cork taint influence), cellaring and transport conditions, the other wines in the tasting, the health and mood of the taster, the environment (I’m always wary of rating a wine at a winery or with its maker), whether the taster is operating alone or in company, the number of wines in the tasting and the time of day. While some of us try as hard as we can to make it so, wine tasting is not a readily repeatable and exact science. The challenge facing a professional taster is to be aware of these variables and to eliminate as many of them as possible. And even if we do, we’re still human and prone to error. Just as I’ve witnessed many of Australia’s best wine makers slam their own wines in public and trade tastings, there’s not a wine writer I respect who wouldn’t admit to making mistakes. The problem for us is that once we make them, they’re there for anyone to see. Because of the sheer number of wines I have to taste it is not possible to taste every single one in perfect conditions. I have no choice but to put wines in large tastings. While I spend as long as possible over each wine, sometimes their impression can be affected by the wines lined up just before them, or by how well ‘breathed’ or not the wine in the glass is. Some wines look more exciting and vibrant having just been poured, while others can take an hour in the glass. We’ve all experienced the surprise on discovering that a red wine we might have opened tastes better the following day! Sometimes, especially with older wines, cork variation alone can make a wine appear significantly older or younger than it seemed the last time it was tasted. This can happen without any suggestion of any cork taint or wine fault – it’s just part of the deal that goes with sealing wines with corks and keeping them in different cellaring conditions. Yet, as a taster, you generally can’t tell at the time that this is the case, unless you happen to have another bottle you can open or else have tasted the same wine in the recent past. As a critic, unless the sample is clearly faulty or questionable, I believe you just have to publish the most recent assessment you have made from a bottle you considered to be sound. Some wine faults, like the presence of extremely faint spoilage characters from influences such as brettanomyces yeast can be very difficult or even impossible to detect in certain young wines, yet can emerge with dire and damaging consequences down the track. I think that many people have an unrealistic expectation of how consistent a taster can be, for there are simply too many variables that make it hard for scores to be absolute. I’m always curious to find the reasons why I might have rated a wine by an entire mark differently to the last time I tasted it. But, since I re-taste around 10-15% of most of the wines in my annual book and website on a yearly basis, I am actually pleased by the small degree of significant alteration I find myself having to do. However, if my views change over time, then I’d rather deal with the adverse reaction from some quarters than live with the knowledge that I had published something that I didn’t really believe in. Many other wine writers, Robert Parker and James Halliday included, appear to share this view.
