Two tests. The one on experts was reported (I think) in New Scientist, so perhaps was based on peer-reviewed research. The TV test was probably inspired by it, but made no claims itself to scientific rigour. You will note that that I said "mainly on the colour" and "most ordinary people" - I don't doubt that there are other factors too, and some people are better at this sort of thing than others.
I never knew that! This site is very educational. This raises questions about the subjects of the above-mentioned test - were they genuine wine industry expert tasters, or just the people who write about wine in the glossy magazines? Perhaps I was too quick to make comparisons with audio.
Yes, wine is far more of an honest business than audio. Not honest, mind you, just more honest.
Many magazine writers are frauds who are good at writing entertaining prose. Many are superb tasters who work very honestly. But if someone has an MW or MS or WCET, or for that matter has qualified for industry sensory panels, one can be sure that they didn't attain these by loud and repeated assertion.
Many magazine writers are frauds who are good at writing entertaining prose. Many are superb tasters who work very honestly. But if someone has an MW or MS or WCET, or for that matter has qualified for industry sensory panels, one can be sure that they didn't attain these by loud and repeated assertion.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.