Lmao, I thought Steve is usually the one that picks the different answer, like when he went with California instead of New Zealand last episode. Still very funny though
wondering how many commenting here have ever even had Amarone, much less tried to distinguish it from Burgandy, Bordeaux, Napa, etc... these videos are great.
Good point, I think a lot of viewers are not nearly knowledgeable enough to pass a judgement. However, for studious lovers of of wines, Amarone, Burgandy and bordeaux blends are different enough to be easily distinguishable.
Yes, some good points about cold reading. But there wasn't very much "fishing" going on, so it seems like there's a solid foundation to their knowledge.
By actual paper, I mean not an article about it. UA-cam won't allow URLs in comments, but if you google for "stevereads brochet wine" you'll get an English translation of it. At no point are the test subjects characterised as anything, much less experts. The word "expert" occurs twice in mostly off-hand mentions.
Led here by John Gruber, who should NOT have linked that io9 piece about how wine tasting is BS. Wine has been produced and prized for thousands of years. It takes lots of experience and a gifted palate to understsnd wine at the level of being able to cover it for a living. Slapping together a snide, cherry-picked takedown of wine enjoyment takes neither. I say this not as a wine snob, but as a young person of modest means who knows JUST enough about wine to know how little I know about wine.
It's not really surprising that the person who posted this video entirely missed the point of the io9 piece, given that this video was posted in November 2011 and the io9 piece was posted in May 2013. Believe it or not, this video was not staged to refute some obscure blog post.
Considering the huge space of possible combinations (varietal+region+vintage), getting even one per season right is beating chance. (Can't be arsed to pull out Statistics 101 to estimate the probability of getting X right in Y guesses by chance alone, but it just doesn't seem very likely to get even one-two right.)
Even if the woman knew the truth beforehand, to cold-read her they'd have to make a correct guess once. Assuming that the video wasn't severely deceptively edited, they only made very very few guesses. Psychics usually either make a great many guesses in private sessions, knowing you're likely to forget the wrong ones shortly. Or when working with a large audience, they make generic guesses knowing *someone* in the room will fit. It doesn't seem like either applies here.
Most people don't taste white wines at room temperature - add a little food coloring, and that'll throw off a lot of folks, regardless, Szabo's the real deal - he's ( usually ) that good - and he's far from the only one - on several occasions I've seen guys do blind tastings in a room full of 30 bottles, and guess which glass belongs which bottle. It's not that wine tasting is bullshit, it's that it's really easy to throw people off. Unfortunately - it also attracts a lot of poseurs.
Prof. Killionare yeah, I can't agree more. Blind tasting is logical reasoning process, you got a idea, you got prove it, even a small mistake could lead you to the wrong place. I like the Master Sommelier in this video, Amazing.
If you want to assess someone's skills on tastings: everyone writes notes and guesses, then each person reads its notes = no infuence from each others then
I think you entirely missed the point of the io9 piece. The idea was that our sense of taste is by far our weakest, and can be led astray by so many things, that essentially the process of JUDGING wine is pointless. Hell, if a panel of 54 judges were misled by food colouring - with a 100% strike rate - then I think we can safely say that there's something to that.
So it's possible part of the performance is cold-reading her for confirmation of guesses. But considering the thousands of possible there are when it comes to country+region and variety alone, and the fact there's very little visible fishing, it seems they'd have to be at least somewhat educated guesses. Also, I'm not sure that being able to detect very subtle aromas and match them to memory is any less plausible a skill than being able to very detect subtle body language signals.
Wine is ancient, and I can taste differences in wine, anyone can, the io9 piece was not about that. It was how taste from some critics are overblown, exaggerated, and it's not possible to invent all theses "flavors" in Wine time after time. And I'm saying that from a country reputed for its awesome critics and wine. There is too much evidence, studies, and people explaining it's way too much exaggerated. it's a show. - still, it says nothing about wine, its quality and culture. it's fine.
I'm not an expert at all, and sure they could be honest, but based on a strict viewing of this video, I must say this is very unscientific! Does the woman know the truth? You have a group of wine experts who are all talking to each other, reading each other's body language. Not all that different then when a psychic is trying to 'read' a room. If they took a taste with no communication and just wrote down their answers, yes it'd be a boring show, but a fairer assessment of their skills.
Szabo is the king of the show. Steve in every episode is like: "Yeah, I`m going with what the others are saying"
Lmao, I thought Steve is usually the one that picks the different answer, like when he went with California instead of New Zealand last episode. Still very funny though
Szabo is scary good.
Guys a beast. He administered by introductory sommelier exam. Such a pleasure
wondering how many commenting here have ever even had Amarone, much less tried to distinguish it from Burgandy, Bordeaux, Napa, etc... these videos are great.
Good point, I think a lot of viewers are not nearly knowledgeable enough to pass a judgement. However, for studious lovers of of wines, Amarone, Burgandy and bordeaux blends are different enough to be easily distinguishable.
Very Nice
A lovely wine, just love Amarone :)
The level of accuracy there is fairly incredible.
I TRYED MASI CAMPOFIORIN AND LOVE IT MUST BUY THESE ONE I GUESS IT,S MUCH STRONGER
John Szabo do be looking like Jens Fehlau (search him up)
phwoar, well done! having a 2008 now!
Yes, some good points about cold reading. But there wasn't very much "fishing" going on, so it seems like there's a solid foundation to their knowledge.
Classic Steve
By actual paper, I mean not an article about it. UA-cam won't allow URLs in comments, but if you google for "stevereads brochet wine" you'll get an English translation of it. At no point are the test subjects characterised as anything, much less experts. The word "expert" occurs twice in mostly off-hand mentions.
Led here by John Gruber, who should NOT have linked that io9 piece about how wine tasting is BS. Wine has been produced and prized for thousands of years. It takes lots of experience and a gifted palate to understsnd wine at the level of being able to cover it for a living. Slapping together a snide, cherry-picked takedown of wine enjoyment takes neither. I say this not as a wine snob, but as a young person of modest means who knows JUST enough about wine to know how little I know about wine.
Szabo knows his shit
John is a guru of wines! -_-
Amarone is not a varietal, is it?
John Szabo is legend
It's not really surprising that the person who posted this video entirely missed the point of the io9 piece, given that this video was posted in November 2011 and the io9 piece was posted in May 2013. Believe it or not, this video was not staged to refute some obscure blog post.
i can pick olde english out from colt45 every time. the hell with these uppity wine snobs!
though that last guy nailed it, thats fairly impressive
I love John
"t also attracts a lot of poseurs" - as any similar careers.
Considering the huge space of possible combinations (varietal+region+vintage), getting even one per season right is beating chance.
(Can't be arsed to pull out Statistics 101 to estimate the probability of getting X right in Y guesses by chance alone, but it just doesn't seem very likely to get even one-two right.)
If you factor in the fact that this is not guessing, but deduction based on flavour characteristics, it's not as improbable as your math suggests.
What gentlemen
Even if the woman knew the truth beforehand, to cold-read her they'd have to make a correct guess once. Assuming that the video wasn't severely deceptively edited, they only made very very few guesses. Psychics usually either make a great many guesses in private sessions, knowing you're likely to forget the wrong ones shortly. Or when working with a large audience, they make generic guesses knowing *someone* in the room will fit. It doesn't seem like either applies here.
Most people don't taste white wines at room temperature - add a little food coloring, and that'll throw off a lot of folks, regardless, Szabo's the real deal - he's ( usually ) that good - and he's far from the only one - on several occasions I've seen guys do blind tastings in a room full of 30 bottles, and guess which glass belongs which bottle.
It's not that wine tasting is bullshit, it's that it's really easy to throw people off.
Unfortunately - it also attracts a lot of poseurs.
Jamie Lannister appreciates wine better than his sister
Szabo is a wine genius
Has anyone watched episode 2.2? They couldn't guess ANY details, apart from the year.
If this is a tournament, then why do they give eachother hints? And how can it be that they hear the decision of the others?
Because watching them discuss it is awesome. What fun would it be watching them individually think about it hahaha
Prof. Killionare yeah, I can't agree more. Blind tasting is logical reasoning process, you got a idea, you got prove it, even a small mistake could lead you to the wrong place. I like the Master Sommelier in this video, Amazing.
he's still right.
John Szabo is no joke!!!
If you want to assess someone's skills on tastings: everyone writes notes and guesses, then each person reads its notes = no infuence from each others then
Is this a podcast on iTunes? Where can I find it?
I think you entirely missed the point of the io9 piece. The idea was that our sense of taste is by far our weakest, and can be led astray by so many things, that essentially the process of JUDGING wine is pointless. Hell, if a panel of 54 judges were misled by food colouring - with a 100% strike rate - then I think we can safely say that there's something to that.
So it's possible part of the performance is cold-reading her for confirmation of guesses. But considering the thousands of possible there are when it comes to country+region and variety alone, and the fact there's very little visible fishing, it seems they'd have to be at least somewhat educated guesses.
Also, I'm not sure that being able to detect very subtle aromas and match them to memory is any less plausible a skill than being able to very detect subtle body language signals.
steve go hme
Although they did very well here, they did not do so well in Episode #1.3 - so go figure.
Wine is ancient, and I can taste differences in wine, anyone can, the io9 piece was not about that.
It was how taste from some critics are overblown, exaggerated, and it's not possible to invent all theses "flavors" in Wine time after time.
And I'm saying that from a country reputed for its awesome critics and wine.
There is too much evidence, studies, and people explaining it's way too much exaggerated.
it's a show.
-
still, it says nothing about wine, its quality and culture. it's fine.
Amarone is made from Corvina, why is the varietal called Amarone? That is so dumb. Ask for appellation not varietal if you want amarone as an answer
I think when you call something bullshit or utter bullshit, as the article did, that *does* seem to infer pointlessness.
How the heck could a wine show label the varietal as "Amarone." I like the show but this is embarrassing
lol morgan lol
I'm not an expert at all, and sure they could be honest, but based on a strict viewing of this video, I must say this is very unscientific! Does the woman know the truth? You have a group of wine experts who are all talking to each other, reading each other's body language. Not all that different then when a psychic is trying to 'read' a room. If they took a taste with no communication and just wrote down their answers, yes it'd be a boring show, but a fairer assessment of their skills.
ffs, it's a fun game, not an interrogation
this series is such a joke. Amarone as a varietal.
what's wrong with that?
Amarone is the type of wine, the varietals are mostly Corvina and Rondinella
How the heck could a wine show label the varietal as "Amarone." I like the show but this is embarrassing