I was reading Dr. Vino's blog where he discusses an article published in Wine Economics regarding the apparent lack of consistency in wine competitions. The data indicate that wines that win a gold medal in one competition are no more likely to win another competition than any other wine. The abstract reads:
Clearly there are many factors that can affect the taste of wine (or mead) and most of us have witnessed the variability between bottles over time, but I thought that something that was really good would be recognized in more than one place.
So what's my take on this (like someone cares about my take)?
If you like the way your mead/wine/beer tastes then it is good.
If your wife likes it, then it's a winner! ;D
An analysis of over 4000 wines entered in 13 U.S. wine competitions shows little concordance among the venues in awarding Gold medals. Of the 2,440 wines entered in more than three competitions, 47 percent received Gold medals, but 84 percent of these same wines also received no award in another competition. Thus, many wines that are viewed as extraordinarily good at some competitions are viewed as below average at others. An analysis of the number of Gold medals received in multiple competitions indicates that the probability of winning a Gold medal at one competition is stochastically independent of the probability of receiving a Gold at another competition, indicating that winning a Gold medal is greatly influenced by chance alone.(JEL Classification: D02, Q19)
Clearly there are many factors that can affect the taste of wine (or mead) and most of us have witnessed the variability between bottles over time, but I thought that something that was really good would be recognized in more than one place.
So what's my take on this (like someone cares about my take)?
If you like the way your mead/wine/beer tastes then it is good.
If your wife likes it, then it's a winner! ;D