Review outlets need to stop pretending that tasting wines for review under different conditions doesn’t matter. It does.

There are dozens of outlets that review wine. Too few provide information about the conditions under which they do it.

Even at prominent outlets, it is common for reviewers to taste wines in a variety of settings. These might include mass tastings, where a hundred or more wines are tasted, at the winery, or at home.

Review outlets act as if these three settings are the same. They are not. These are radically different conditions that can produce substantially different results for the same wine.

To wit, ask any winemaker the setting in which they would prefer their wines be reviewed. They will almost universally say at the winery with the winemaker or another winery representative present.

However, those opportunities are typically reserved for highly regarded wineries. This gives those wineries a distinct advantage.

Wines reviewed at mass tastings, in contrast, are at a considerable disadvantage. Palate fatigue, tannin accumulation, and other issues can occur, even for experienced reviewers.

Tasting at home, meanwhile, a reviewer has considerably more time with a wine. This can, again, be a potential advantage for those wines.

Bottom line, tasting in varied settings can yield varied results, where some wines are advantaged and others are disadvantaged. Worse, for outlets that taste in non-standardized environments, the setting in which a reviewer tastes a wine is typically opaque.

What do the consequences look like? At Northwest Wine Report, I taste all wines under the exact same conditions. (Those conditions are detailed extensively.) However, I also taste at wineries. When I do, I take notes and score the wines, though these scores are never published. I have, however, compared them to my reviews under standardized conditions.

What I have found is that wines tasted on-site at the winery often, though not always, score better. In my experience, wines tasted at a winery typically score one to two points higher than the exact same wines tasted under standardized conditions. I have seen as much as four points higher.

How can this happen? It is certainly true that a bottle is only a snapshot in time, as is a reviewer’s perception. But I believe something else is going on.

When reviewing at a winery, the winemaker, or whoever is presenting the wines, is able to convey their excitement about the wine. Guess what? It works.

This can impact the reviewer’s perception and therefore his or her score. A winery could also decant their wine for hours or do any one of a number of things that might impact a reviewer’s perception.

Wine reviewing outlets need to stop pretending that tasting wines for review under different conditions doesn’t matter. It does.

How can this be fixed? It’s easy. Review outlets need to be more transparent about the conditions under which wines are tasted.

First, all review sites should describe in detail the manner in which wines are tasted for review. Second, sites that taste under varied conditions ­­­should specify the conditions under which each wine is tasted. This could be done by a simple icon or text listing.

That would allow consumers to decide for themselves whether the setting makes a difference or not. I can already tell you the answer: It does.

Northwest Wine Report needs your support. If you haven’t already, please subscribe. Northwest Wine Report is 100% subscriber funded. This site can’t continue to exist without your support. To those who have subscribed, thank you! You power this site.