Every few years, a well-meaning observer proposes that the Seven Pours be reduced to something shorter. The proposal is usually made in good faith and is invariably declined, in good faith, by the Assessment Standards Board. This paper sets out the Institution’s reasons, and the reasons for its reasons.
The case for seven
The Seven Pours were not designed. They accumulated, in the manner of all great institutions, through the patient addition of steps that each seemed, at the time, to be the last one needed. The Graduated Sniff was added in 1934. First Contact was added when it was observed that wine had, until then, been rather quietly assessed. Regional Credibility Scoring followed an incident in 2007 that the Board has asked not be described here.
The result is a process of such completeness that it has, on several occasions, outlasted the wine. This is not a defect. A procedure that ends before the subject has finished is merely an opinion with a stopwatch.
Resistance to simplification
The most common argument for simplification is that fewer steps would produce equivalent results. The Institution does not dispute this. It observes only that equivalence of result has never been the purpose of procedure. The purpose of procedure is to be seen to have occurred. A verdict reached in one sentence has the weight of one sentence. A verdict reached in seven pours has the weight of seven pours, which, the Board notes, is considerably more.
The role of the pause
Between each stage, the protocol requires a pause of not less than eleven seconds. This interval has been the subject of three reviews, each of which recommended its retention and one of which recommended extending it. The pause is not a delay. It is the part of the procedure in which the assessor is permitted to consider whether she agrees with herself.
Conclusion
The Seven Pours will remain seven. Where the pace of modern life requires a shorter process, the Institution is pleased to offer the same process, more quickly.