AN EASTERN USA WINE COMPETITION COPYRIGHT F. GADEK 04/18/2003 1 TOPIC – “ RESULTS OF AN EASTERN...

AN EASTERN USA WINE COMPETITION

COPYRIGHT F. GADEK 04/18/2003

1

TOPIC –

“ “ RESULTS OF AN RESULTS OF AN

EASTERN USA EASTERN USA ““SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY

{ “STS” }

BYFRANK J. GADEK, PH.D.



2

20 POINT SCORING SYSTEM USED

11 – 13 AVG COMMERCIAL WINE14 – 15 BRONZE16 – 17 SILVER18 – 20 GOLD

AFTER INITIAL EVALUATION –OPPORTUNITY TO CONVERSEAND ADUJST SCORES SO ALLJUDGES WITHIN + / - 3

4 – 5 JUDGES / PANEL



3

A POSSIBLE “SNAPSHOT”

OF THE SOME OF THE

PRESENT BEST WINES

IN THE INDUSTRY



4



5



6



7



8



9

POINTS:

▼ASSUME WINEMAKERS THOUGHT WINES SUBMITTED WERE THEIR BEST

▼ WHERE THESE WINES ACTUALLY MADE AT A PROFIT?

▼ PRODUCTION VOLUME CONSIDERATIONS

▼ REPRODUCIBILITY ISSUES



10

₪ 61% JUDGED FOR MEDALS, 39% FOR QWA [SCORE = / > 13]

₪ 10% GOLD, 18% SILVER [REST BRONZE UNLESS QWA CATEGORY]

₪ 25% JUDGED IN QWA CATEGORY DID NOT MAKE QWA



11

FOR WINES LABELED WITH ONLY A SINGLE GRAPE, NO BLENDS, SPECIAL NAMES, ETC. BY THE WINERY:

◘ 44% WINES JUDGED WERE VINIFERA[22% WHITE, 22% RED]

◘ ONLY 4% WINES JUDGED WERE LABRUSCA



12

♦ONE WINERY [#13] DID VERY WELL – OF 15 WINES JUDGED FOR MEDALS, 20 % GOLD, 27% SILVER[TOTAL = 47%, ALMOST HALF OF ALL SUBMITTED]

♦ SOME WINERIES [#2, 6, 7, 8, 10] – NO GOLD OR SILVER

♦ SOME WINERIES [#3, #4, #5, #9, #13, #14] DID VERY WELL IN QWA – 100% WINES JUDGED FOR QWA OBTAINED QWA

♦ ALL WINES NOT JUDGED QWA, OBTAINED AT LEAST BRONZE – AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED



13

◙ OVERALL, WINES IN THE “DRY” CATEGORY [= / < 0.2% RS] RECEIVED THE MOST GOLD, SILVER AND QWA DESIGNATIONS

◙ THUS, USING SUGAR TO “MASK” DEFECTS AND INCREASE “PERCEPTION” OF HIGHER QUALITY, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY INVOLVED, AS MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE IN THE PAST

◙ SO TO QUALIFY, NEED TO MAKE BEST “DRY”WINES YOU CAN & NOT DEPEND ON SWEETENING



14

OBVIOUSLY, WINE COMPETITIONS CAN BE IMPROVED

[E.G., MORE QUALIFIED JUDGES, BETTER JUDGINGFACILITIES, MORE SOPHISTICATED EVALUATIONS, ETC.]

¤BUT IMPROVEMENT COSTS MORE RESOURCES

¤ HOW FAR DOES THE INDUSTRY PRESENTLY WANT TO GO?

¤ HOW FAR CAN THE INDUSTRY REALISTICALLY GO?

HOW FAR CAN THEY AFFORD TO GO ?HOW FAR CAN THEY AFFORD TO GO ?



15

¤ REFINE PURPOSE AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COMMERCIAL WINE JUDGINGS TO

BETTER MEET CURRENT INDUSTRY NEEDS



16

“HOW ARE WE

DOING?”



17

FUTURE FUTURE

FUTURE FUTURE

FUTURE

FUTURE

FUTURE

FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE

FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE

09/01/99 FRANK J. GADEK, PH.D., FAIC



19

TO BE CONTINUED AS TO BE CONTINUED AS

INTEREST &INTEREST &

RESOURCES PERMITRESOURCES PERMIT

JUST LET ME KNOW !JUST LET ME KNOW !

AN EASTERN USA WINE COMPETITION COPYRIGHT F. GADEK 04/18/2003 1 TOPIC – “ RESULTS OF AN EASTERN...

Documents

Transcript of AN EASTERN USA WINE COMPETITION COPYRIGHT F. GADEK 04/18/2003 1 TOPIC – “ RESULTS OF AN EASTERN...