Back to Blind
I've been blind tasting again, as part of my studies. I may have had a rethink.
Blind tasting. It’s a parlour game to some, but for MW students, it’s a make-or-break skill.
I won’t trudge through the details again, except to say that it takes practice.
Whatever it’s worth, I’m back at.
Getting outside of my comfort zone.
Last year, I was in a WhatsApp group I wanted to engage with, but for some reason, I didn’t. That was a mistake. This year, I pushed myself to put my name down, hop on a train, and get involved.
The group is ‘MW Tasting at WSET School’. The admins are MW students who, conveniently, also work at the WSET school. If you’re teaching WSET classes every day, why not study for the MW in your spare time?!
Either way, it’s a great group of people, most of whom I know through the study programme, the idea is that one of us sets a 12-wine blind tasting paper for 11 other members most Saturdays. We take any room we can get at the WSET offices in Bermondsey and away we go.
As a student, I couldn’t really ask for a better opportunity to taste 12 wines in semi-structured exam conditions every Saturday. No idea why I didn’t get involved last year.
I’ve been to three or four now and plan to go as often as possible between now and May.
The Tastings
Week one was fine, week two better, and last week wasn’t bad either. But I’m judging myself on more than just identification. The MW exam increasingly rewards reasoning over mere identification. Many regions produce similar wines, and a strong argument for one over another can still earn marks.
That said, getting the wines right makes the argument much easier.
I’ve written about this before, though I’ve changed tack a little bit. The difference between 50% (fail) and 80% (pass!) isn’t necessarily a bad argument, it’s simply coming down on the wrong side of the fence. This is where funnelling between one or the other becomes crucial. But in the heat of the blind tasting, the wrong answer can feel like the right one.
Blind tasting is a maths exam. Show your workings.
Here’s a working example
“Identify the grape variety and origin as closely as possible (10 marks).”
Let’s say it’s a well-made, mid-tier quality, AOC Chablis, £15.
A misidentification: Garganega, Soave DOC
“Bright M+ acidity with crisp texture, clean, bright citrus (lemon), green fruit (apple/pear) subtle aromatics suggesting semi-neutral variety in restrained light bodied style suggests cool climate, leading to European origin. Moderate alcohol (12% ABV) with pale lemon colour supportive of neutral Italian variety. No obvious evidence of oak, yet some softness from lees and a subtle flinty/mineral note leading to Garganega on volcanic soil indicating Soave AOC.”
With a decent argument, you might get 4 (of 5) marks for the reasoning, 1 (of 2) for origin. Get the grape wrong, and you’re probably not getting any of the remaining 3 marks.
Result: 5 out of 10 // 50% = D grade. The pass mark is 65%.
Instead: Chardonnay, Chablis AOC
“Bright high acidity with crisp texture, clean, bright citrus (lemon), green fruit (apple/pear) suggesting neutral variety (Chardonnay). Light body and 12% abv supports cool European origin. No obvious evidence of oak, subtle creaminess suggesting MLF. Subtle chalky note leading to Chablis. No secondary development supports AOC quality over premium 1er or grand cru examples.”
Get the grape right (3 marks), and the origin (2 marks), with a so-so argument for origin gets 3 (of 5) marks.
Result: 8 out of 10 // 80% = A grade. Comfortably above the 65% pass mark.
Much better to get the wines right.
You can’t pass the exam by getting a majority of the wines wrong with great arguments. I’ve tried that twice. In last year’s exams, I think I got maybe 15 out of 36 wines pretty much right (40%) and came away with about 55% overall.
The maths suggests that even when you get a wine really right: Identification, quality, winemaking, style, and commercial. You’d be pleased with 21/25 marks. But when you get them really wrong, you might scrape 7/25 marks. So 28/50 (56%) if you add those together.
In short, you can’t argue your way to a pass. You have to get enough wines right. The numbers don’t lie.
Meaning, you need to get eight wines really right (168 marks), and you can afford to get four wines a bit wrong (28 marks) to get you to that magic 196 marks.
What I’m saying is, you’ve got to get the wines right. That takes practice. This year, I’m doing that with groups of other students, in exam conditions, much more often.
So far, it’s helping.
I passed the mock exam paper at the seminar a couple of weeks ago, and at the WSET tasting last week, I think I’d have passed that week’s paper as well.
I think I’m beginning to know what ‘good’ looks like when it comes to the practical exam.
There’s a slight sense, and I’m not getting ahead of myself…but just the smallest case of the ‘fuck-its’ taking the pressure off. When you stop stressing about perfect arguments, you focus on solving the logic puzzle in front of you.
In the past, I overthought the argument instead of trusting what was in the glass.
This year, I’m reversing that.
Further Reading
Some thoughts from 2022:
And some from 2024:
this was super interesting, I may be coming to you for some solidarity if I decide to go for the MW after diploma!
A tip I had from a prominent MW, rather saying cool climate = Europe, say climate with cooling influences. This makes sure you have a backstop.