French name for sample in the sense of sample (to try). This can be, for example, a soil sample (échantillon de sol) or a wine tasting (échantillon de vin). See below wine review,
There are many names for testing and grading of wines by man-made "smelling and tasting", a few of which are, for example, tasting, tasting, tasting and wine tasting. It is this one sensory (organoleptic) examination of a wine with a descriptive explanation of the knowledge gained according to established rules and criteria using generally valid and comprehensible terms (see under wine address ). This is done in the relevant events not in a scientific-analytical way with technical or other aids, but "only" through the sensory organs such as the eye, nose, palate and tongue. This then results, if necessary, the evaluation by awarding points to different systems. In addition, there are also possibilities to make an objective measurement by exact, chemical analyzes. This is for example the determination of alcohol content. total extract. residual sugar. acids. sulfur and other substances in wine.
Nevertheless, one comes without a "subjective" examination sensory Tasting by humans is not enough, but the two procedures complement each other and only in combination give a "fair" assessment. A person can determine the taste "sweet", but never exactly how many grams of sugar are contained in a liter of wine. By analytical test again, however, it can not be determined whether a wine "tastes". There is the phenomenon of national preferences and rejections. In general, Austrians and Germans prefer acid-stressed, Italian bitter, American sweeten and French astringent Taste, although such generalizations should be treated with caution. The lighting in a room also influences the taste of a wine: it tastes better with red and blue light than with green or white light, according to scientists from the Psychological Institute of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz found out. The study found that the test wine tasted sweeter by about 1.5 times under red light than under white or green light. The fruitiness was also rated highest in red light.
Professional degustators, however, can ignore such influencing factors and judge a wine as "just" and "objectively" by, of course, ignoring their personal likes and dislikes. However, this can only be achieved through years of practice and experience. In order to eliminate influences from external circumstances such as the lighting mentioned above, professional tastings take place in a barren, neutral environment. The famous English Degustator Michael Broadbent (born 1927) has tasted over 70,000 wines. But he does not use any of the scoring systems described below, but awards one to five stars. Likewise, the well-known wine author Hugh uses Johnson a separate scheme with 12 levels. In addition to theoretical knowledge, the following skills are required: olfactory acuity, ability to distinguish and remember, ability to concentrate and the greatest possible objectivity. An important role plays the Perceptual threshold, This is the limit in mg / l range and smaller, but one can identify and name a substance.
Professor Emile Peynaud (1912-2004), one of the most famous degustators, writes in his multiple-edition standard work "High school for wine connoisseurs" the following: The statement that something sweet is an objective statement; it characterizes the product in question. To say that, for example, a cup coffee enough or not enough sweet; is a subjective utterance; she is personal; it depends on the drinking habits and taste of a person. But if one says that sugar tastes unpleasant; that one abhors everything that is sweet, then one expresses an affective opinion.
The professional taster must be able to turn off his affectivity. He should not say if he likes or agrees to a wine. You do not want to know that from him. He must study the wine, describe it, judge its good or bad organoleptic properties and draw conclusions. These may be subjective, but they must not be based on personal preference, at least as little as possible. This is the big and decisive difference to the untrained wine drinker whose judgment is purely affective. "
Nevertheless, even with absolute specialists in the same wine the rating can be different, although this usually (if at all) accounts for only a few points. With several scales also from different manufacturers, one can very well assume that weighing out an object results in at least a tenth of a gram in the same result. Because the scales are all calibrated. This can not be the case with humans, because the palate and tongue as well as the experience and preferences of different people are certainly not identical. A different result is therefore not inevitable, but not surprising.
As an exemplary example of an extremely different rating, the grading of the red wine from Château Pavie mentioned in the 2003 edition, by Robert Parker 96/100 points and from Jancis Robinson 12/20 points were awarded. Below is the formula for converting the points between the 20s and 100s system. Accordingly, Robinson's 12/20 points equate to 76/100 points - that means a "simple wine without mistakes". Parker's 96/100 points are a "world-class wine". However, the two have not tasted from the same bottle. Two bottles For different reasons, they can very well have quality differences, which can be considered as bottles variance designated.
As a rule, wine ratings have no scientific validity. If you were to repeat the competition the next day with the same judges and the same wines, it would not be quite different, but with the greatest likelihood, mostly different rating numbers. In the sense of a scientifically recognized result, however, they would have to be repeatable, that is, at best, completely identical. It can be assumed that the differences between two evaluation rounds are the lower, the higher the knowledge, experience and professionalism of the tasters. See also the result of a legendary international struggle between France and California below Paris Wine Tasting,
One tastes a wine to determine its quality for different reasons. As part of an official audit, it is determined by professional inspection bodies, among other things, whether the wine complies with the wine law requirements. This is, for example, in the award of the Official test number (Germany) and State test number (Austria) for quality wines the case in addition to the analytical examination by means of chemical and technical aids also just one sensory (organoleptic) takes place through the sensory organs. Another reason may be a contest in which different wines are tasted, rated and after the result awarded become. The third reason can be purely private. Either to educate yourself, to enjoy wine with friends and to talk about it or to find the best value for money when buying a wine. However, the criteria are very similar, but in any case they must be well defined and known beforehand so that all tasters are based on the same basis.
The best time for a tasting is in the late morning, because the human body or the sensory organs are the most receptive and "fresh". A cold, medicines taken, spicy or spicy foods, coffee, sour fruits, tobacco -Genussmittel, chewing gum and perfume are annoying in a...