Grand Jury Européen
The principles
The permanent members
The approach of the Grand Jury Européen
The statistician's point of view
Grand Jury Européen , 41 Parc Lésigny 5753 Frisange (Luxembourg)
Preliminary
The Grand Jury Européen is a non-profit making organisation based in Luxembourg and was set up by Francois Mauss in 1996. It is a body of wine tasters who aim to provide wine enthusiasts with
an alternative to the rating of wines by individual critics
The principles of the Grand Jury Européen (GJE)
Principle no 1: Creation of a European panel.
"A sum of subjectivities and the beginnings of objectivity”. To put this theory into practice one must set up a panel, a difficult operation in itself as all the members must have some sort of homogeneity in there understanding of the concept of “Fine Wine” whilst approaching tasting with the ability to express their own sensibilities in relation to their national culture and the needs of their profession: A German restaurateur will not taste in the same way as an Italian journalist; Similarly a French sommelier and a Spanish oenologue. In addition to this the competence and professional ethic of such a gathering of tasters must be recognised by both the wine producers and enthusiasts.
Principle no 2: Strict tasting rules.
Since its first session the Grand Jury gave itself strict rules:
- A coherent selections of wine, on a given theme, chosen after consultation with the permanent members;
- Sessions organised into half day tastings where a maximum of thirty wine are tasted
- The tastings are blind and only the theme and the vintage are known.
- A scoring system, which associates a mark out a 100 and a short comment, combined with an elaborate statistical treatment, which corrects adding up and ranking errors.
- Control over the proceedings by a legal adviser who has been sworn in.
- Wines purchased at market value
- “Assemblage” of two bottles needed (if the session comprises more than 15 people) to avoid any discrepancies between the wine which might have evolved differently from bottle to bottle.
- Tasting order drawn at random by the legal adviser
- The tasters are asked to begin the tasting with the number of the glass that matches their table number so as to avoid penalising the first wine tasted.
- A strict silence is observed during the 2 hours tasting
Principle no 3: Independence
The Grand jury is committed to remaining independent from the wine producing industry having no financial interests and relies on sponsors, partners and suppliers from other areas. We thank them whole-heartedly.
Our main partners are: Cristallerie Spigelau, British Airways, EuroCave, Scewpull, Tonnellerie Taransaud, Golf-Club de Genève, Fontanella SpA, Pietro Ciana, Esperya, Siprem SpA, Schmierer & Friends, Tabac Rhein, Hôtel Balzac & George V (Paris), Crystal Wines (Singapore), Dolia sarl, Grand Hyatt Group.
The organisation of the sessions is the responsibility of sommelier Alexendre Wagner, GJE’s technical director.
Principle no 4: Underlying philosophy
“ A Fine Wine is made in the vineyard not in the cellar “
A ‘Fine Wine’ is made to accompany food not to be an artificially enhanced prize winner”
Principle no 5: Communication
The grand Jury sends out a press release at the end of each session.
The results are the subject of a presentation and an in depth analysis in the GJE’s publication and its web site: (in French only)
The winexcellence.com site has a complete analysis of all the sessions from the beginning in 1996.
From September 2001 the French monthly GaultMillau publication will also regularly publish the main results from the GJE sessions.
A collective approach to tasting realised under the rules stated above is definitely a valuable alternative to the most recognised individual rankings.
Informations :
François Mauss
Grand Jury Européen
41 parc Lésigny
5753 Frisange Luxembourg
Tel:+ 00 352 021 171 188
Email :
Permanent Members (CG)* of the Grand Jury Européen
*CG= Core Group -Those that attend GJE tastings very regularly
Austria
Schmierer, Harald
Negociant
Belgium
Havaux, Louis
Fonder of the Revue Vino
Deutschland
Geisel, Otto
Hotelier, negociant
Payne, Joël
Journalist
France
Blanck, Christophe
Director of GaultMillau Group
Bourguignon, Philippe
Director of Restaurant Laurent**
Bureau, Didier
Director, Duval-Leroy Paris
Burtschy, Bernard
Professor of Statistics
Derenoncourt, Stéphane
Wine producer
Giraud, Jean-Pierre
Commercial Director, Tonnellerie Taransaud
Poussier, Olivier
World’s best sommelier Award Winner
Vialette, Laurent
Negociant
Italy
Bava, Gabriele
Negociant
Castiglioni, Sebastiano
Wine producer
Vizzari, Enzo
Associate Director – L’Espresso
Editor- Espresso Guides
Luxembourg
Duhr, Abi
Wine producer, eonologist, Hotel School Professor
Netherlands
De Groot, Ronald
Editor- Perwinjs
Singapore
N.K., Yong
Collector
Spain
Del Castillo, Julia
Journalist, eonologist
Switzerland
Jezek, Wolfango
Wine producer
Perrin, Jacques
Negociant, C.A.V.E. sa
Regamey, Patrick
Doctor - Producer
United Kingdom
Blech, Neville
Trade, The Wine Treasury ltd
Hanson, Anthony
Director Christie's
Eleven countries are regularly represented at the GJE sessions. In 2002 the GJE will integrate tasters from other countries such as Spain, Portugal, Austria, Denmark and Ireland.
In the mid term, the GJE envisages inviting American, Australian, Chilean and South African tasters becoming a “Grand Jury International”
The participants will be chosen amongst wine professionals who are used to tasting the best wines in the world in their professional capacity. The core group will always be limited to 40 members.
Other permanent members of the Grand Jury Européen
Deutschland
Diel, Armin
Wine producer
France
Banyols, Marie-Louise
Sommelier
Beaumard, Eric
Director le V ** (George V) Paris
Bettane, Michel
Advisor to the Revue du Vin de France
Derenoncourt, Christine
Director – Latour Figeac
Dutournier, Alain
Restaurateur
Carré de Feuillants ** Paris
Guyon, Jean
Wine producer
Mortet, Laurence
Wine producer, Domaine Denis Mortet
Thorel, Jacques
Restaurateur**
Wilhelm, François
Wine Enthusiast
Italy
Della Rosa, Giampaolo
Wine Enthusiast
Kiem, Othmar
Journalist
Masnaghetti, Alessandro
Journalist, Espresso
Motta, Giampaolo
Wine producer, La Massa
Pallanti, Marco
Wine producer
Rivetti, Giorgio
Wine producer, La Spinetta
Rizzari, Fabio
Gambero Rosso
Zanella, Maurizio
Wine producer, Ca'del Bosco
Luxembourg
Bouzonviller, Christian
Restaurateur
Hervé, Michel
Wine Enthusiast
Waldbillig, Nico
Wine Buyer - European Parliament
Singapore
Lee, Derek
Negociant, Crystal Wines
United Kingdom
Joseph, Robert
Journalist, Writer
Robinson, Jancis
Journalist, Writer
USA
Perry, Isaac
Negociant
In addition to these regular members, depending on the circumstances, we are joined by competent tasters including Michel Rolland, Eric Duret, and Robert Vifian.
The approach to wine tasting of The Grand Jury Européen
If throughout the world there is a general understanding of the notion of a “Fine Wine” there is much apprehension around this concept. Indeed the American critic who is used to powerful Californian wines is much more likely to give good marks to well rounded, fleshy, rich wines that are not to tannic and have had a luxurious amount of time to mature in French oak.
This is approach is similar in Australia and New Zealand.
In Europe if you separate out those journalists who are too heavily influenced by American critics who seem to dominate the market, you can easily come across those that promote the notions of “terroir”, vintage, finesse and a wines capacity for ageing.
If it is difficult to pin point the exact concept of a “Fine Wine” we can however define the principle characteristics it should fill:
-To be an expression of the “terroir” and not just the grape variety.
-To be a reflection of its vintage and not be outrageously rectified by technical wizardry in the winery, for example spending a certain length of time in a concentrator, where much can be done including the introduction of artificial aromas.
-To have a history that proves the ageing capacity of the wine over a period of 10 years or more where the wine develops aromatic complexity and finesse in perfect balance (alcohol, bouquet, acidity) and a classy length and finish.
These are fundamental characteristics that a “Fine Wine” should offer the wine enthusiast, there are however exception to the notion of ageing wine, like the white wines of Condrieu or other wines that are pure expressions of fruit and freshness.
Some of the best vineyards in the world which have great reputations everywhere such as Burgundy, Bordeaux, Champagne, Rhône, Loire, Alsace, Rhine, Moselle, Tokaij, Peimont, Tuscany, Priorat, Rioja, Port, Wachau, Napa, Constanzia, all have producers who every year produce pure masterpieces. One knows that these are wines that are alive, that changes radically over time and become over one or several decades jewels.
They are recognised by the market even if the demand which outweighs supply pushes the prices to unrealistic levels often driven by the well known American critics who are all to ready to dish out the marks.
This is where the threat of standardisation of taste comes from. More and more producers – mainly European – are attracted by the promise of quick financial gain and recognition and do not hesitate to produce wines to a certain taste, to the detriment of the more austere expressions of there “terroir” that can be so enthusing when they offer unique and identifiable products.
Certainly one cannot battle against the modern pace of life which demands that wines are produced to be drunk young – leaving only few real wine enthusiast who buy wine for laying down.
Here therefore lie the objectives that the Grand Jury Européen has set itself: to try and find the wines from the different wine producing regions that are the most beautiful expression of a real culture; an association of people, grape varieties, methods of culture and vinification, ageing and climate on a recognised “terroir”.
Nothing other than a collective approach to tasting blind is good enough to avoid the inconveniences of a single opinion and taste and a priori towards a well recognised name or an unknown.
THE STATISTICIAN'S
POINT OF VIEW
Bernard Burtschy, Professor of statistics — in addition to being a member of the Jury and one of the winners of the EuroCave-European Grand Jury Trophy — draws conclusions which enable him to make a statistical analysis based on the official results.
Classifying wines, vintages, even wine-tasters, with a view to quantification, is a process which naturally interests the statistician, a man preoccupied by figures. The process is all the more interesting due to the fact that the use of a set of collective notes to draw up a classification of Châteaux demands a technique that is not without its hazards.
Which scoring system ?
France in particular and Europe in general, are using scales from 1 to 20 or from 1 to 10. The American University tradition, adopted in particular by Robert Parker, operates on a scale of 100. This scale has its own rules which are not always understood. Scores range from 50 to 100 in theory, but in practice it is rare to find a score lower than 72 (zero). the maximum, 100, is very rare too. The gap is therefore from to 25 to 30 points.
The jury was asked to score the wines on a scale of 100 so that the scores would be comparable to the American system. A detailed analysis of the wine-tasters notes showed that they scored in three different ways :
The first group scored according to the rules of the American system. Their scores were between 70 and 100. i.e. a gap of 30 points.
A second group used the scale that they were probably most familiar with, from 0 to 10 or from 0 to 20. Then they multiplied by a factor of 5 or 10. Their scores showed a range of between 20 and 100, i.e. a gap of 80 points.
The third group combined the two systems and scored between 50 and 100, i.e. a gap of 50 points.
The aggregation of individual scores
The classifications were compiled in traditional manner by combining the individual scores. A rough classification was thus obtained, quantifiable in terms of points. This type of classification, which is easy to understand, supposes a perfect homogeneity in the scoring system between the tasters. Even if they adopted the same scale for scoring, this homogeneity would not exist, because it is rare that two tasters score with the same distribution of points.
Is this important ? Yes, because the influence of the taster on the final classification depends on his system of scoring. A taster who gives the same score to every wine has no influence on the classification. The more his scores are diverse, the greater his influence will be.
The consequences are immediate. A taster who uses a scale of 60 points will have twice the influence of a taster who uses a scale of 30 points, and will thus count for two.
The "rough classification" gives greater weight to a taster who uses a large scale.
A taster with disparate notes will have a maximum influence.
It is obviously possible to try and standardise the tasters' evaluations using identical systems of scoring. The experiment, often conducted in product tests, shows that this standardisation is never perfect. With wines, it is virtually impossible because it is so difficult to reflect all the nuances of a wine in one score. As one has to concede that there are several languages in Europe, one must also admit that there are several ways of scoring.
Standardised classifications
There are some more or less sophisticated ways of reducing the exaggerated influence of a particular taster on the overall classification. The simplest method is to take not a wine's score, but its position in the classification. Each taster identifies a first wine and a last one, with perhaps ones that are equal. The sum of the positioning offers a more accurate result than the "rough classification". The positioning method is unsatisfactory in one respect compared to the "rough classification": if a wine is far ahead (or behind) the others, the positioning method doesn't take this into account.
Statisticians prefer to standardise the scores of each taster by putting them on the same average with a constant dispersion. The contribution of each taster to the classification is thus exactly the same. From a rigorously scientific point of view, the only useful classification is one that has been standardised. Thereafter, nothing prevents one from weighting each taster, depending for example on the number of wines discovered "blind".
Group tasting versus individual tasting
The virtues of individual tasting are well known - as are the faults. The individual taster has his own particular taste and it is one that the public can refer to. On the other hand nothing enables one to distinguish an eventual substandard performance by the taster confronted by a spoilt wine, due to a lack of comparison with others. Collective tasting, by diluting the influence of each taster in the group, renders the tasting both more reliable and less personal. Apart from the question of principles or ideologies for or against each type of tasting method, modern statistical methods enable the faults of collective tastings to be remedied.
A taster who judges a series of wines, is rightly judged in turn by his tasting. One needs a lot of time to discover a particular taster's method of tasting. The only way to judge in any kind of formal way is to position his tasting in relation to his judgement of other wines or in relation to other tasters tasting the same wines. Unfortunately, the context in which the tasting takes place also changes.
They are never the same bottles, on the same occasion, etc. And comparison is very personal (which sometimes allows one to save one's reputation).
Collective tasting, if it is properly processed statistically, enables an immediate comparison to be made of the differing profiles of each of the tasters. The rich potential for analysis is incomparable. Twenty tasters, tasting the same bottles on the same day enables one to draw up twenty parallel classifications, and to reveal the similarities and the divergences.
Even the analysis of the similarities and the divergences are better than all the classifications in the world.
Apart from anything else, the methods involved enable a reliable classification with nuances. Two wines could have the same score for different reasons: one for its smoothness and the other for its austere elegance. The confrontation between tasters' judgements, some in favour of the smoothness, others appreciating the suave elegance, enables one to situate a wine in a much surer way than with an individual tasting. An analysis of contrasts remains the surest method of analysing.
This approach to tasting has serious consequences for the compilation of juries. Many think that a jury must be homogenous, that each taster must be a "clone" of the ideal taster, the best in the world. This is to ignore the enormous variety of wines, their complexities and the diversity of tastes. On the contrary, wine-tasting juries must reflect the tastes of consumers. Professional tasters have often enough been accused of living on another planet, totally cut off from reality. Collective tasting, properly treated from a statistical point of view with modern processing methods, enables one to reveal this diversity of choices. Let's not deprive ourselves of that...