what confounded Hodgson was winning a gold medal for his Sangiovese and entering the same wine in another contest and coming up empty handed
Poor dear. Not content with winning one gold medal, he couldn't understand why he didn't get more. Which is perhaps a little unfair to him, but underlines a couple of points when he tries to prove that winning a gold medal is a bit of a lottery
1 - Wine competitions (and I speak from personal experience) tend to upset producers more than make them happy. Which, from a consumer point of view, must be a good thing.
2 - Wine tasters are nothing if not consistent. Sacre-dieu
. Yes, they are human. Perhaps the one good thing that will come out of this is that people will gain a little more confidence in their own tasting ability. The thing is, though, that while professional wine tasters may not get it correct all the time, they get it more correct than anyone else.
3 - Hodgson comes to the conclusion that people, not medals, sell wine. Which is true, up to a point. Unfortunately, he's talking about sommeliers and distributors. I am likely to remain permanently sceptical as to the lack of bias in wine recommendations coming from people whose job it is to sell it.
4 - Hodgson, not unreasonably, concludes that gold medal wines should be 'taken with a grain of salt'. That depends on the competition, to be honest. But if the competition publishes its list of judges, and you rate some of them, at least give the wine a go. Some judges are remarkably consistent.
It's the time of year when major UK wine competitions announce their results [coincidence?], and its the season of complaining wine producers and agents. It shows that at least someone is on the consumers' side.
Labels: gold medals, producers, wine awards, wine competition, wine tasting