For anyone who's interested, for those who ask, "What's better, this or this?", if you just need something to read, here's the poop:
Other Best Kits of 2016 & The Top 100
- Thread starter Johnd
- Start date
Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:
Kudos to Winemaker magazine!
Stressbaby
Just a Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,080
- Reaction score
- 840
I understand the intent, but...
Am I the only one who thinks this is probably a copyright violation?
Am I the only one who thinks this is probably a copyright violation?
bkisel
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 3,681
- Reaction score
- 1,808
I think you're right.
John, why not ask a moderator to verify that there is no copyright infringement?
Last edited:
I see stuff like this and wonder about methodology. Is this just about units sold?
AZMDTed
Just a guy
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 764
- Reaction score
- 542
Don't put too much faith in this. Their methodology is to present the top 100 rated kit wines that were submitted to their annual winemakermag competition. It's good info for that, but to me that's it. Here are the limitations I see, in no particular order:
1. You don't know what year kit was submitted, could be aged three years or three days.
2. It's based on what's entered into completion by people like us. It is not like consumer reports independent testing. They don't buy kits, make them per instructions, and then taste. That would be a great comparison, but impractical.
3. The winemakers could do any tweaks they wanted, good or bad.
It's a great title, but misleading. If one manufacturers kits are entered more than another they will likely have more on the list, doesn't mean they're better. These aren't the best kits manufactured in 2016. Can't really use this for much without specific age and tweak information. They use the UC Davis scoring system. It would be nice if they posted each score. But then again, we don't know enough about how each was made or aged to be useful.
1. You don't know what year kit was submitted, could be aged three years or three days.
2. It's based on what's entered into completion by people like us. It is not like consumer reports independent testing. They don't buy kits, make them per instructions, and then taste. That would be a great comparison, but impractical.
3. The winemakers could do any tweaks they wanted, good or bad.
It's a great title, but misleading. If one manufacturers kits are entered more than another they will likely have more on the list, doesn't mean they're better. These aren't the best kits manufactured in 2016. Can't really use this for much without specific age and tweak information. They use the UC Davis scoring system. It would be nice if they posted each score. But then again, we don't know enough about how each was made or aged to be useful.
globalnavigator
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2015
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 45
Not the same. That is the results from the wine competition held last Spring.
As I read it, it was a blind tasting. The judges did not know who made what or what kit it made from. They just knew the type of wine.
I found it interesting that the low cost Island Mist Peach Apricot Chardonnay was number one...may be the cheapest kit on the list! It is also bubbling away right behind me! I have to admit that folks around here tend to say Oh my! This is wayyy too sweeeet! As they suck their glass dry and grab the bottle for more. It gets gone in a hurry!
Would be very interesting to know the tweaks and details of their crafting.
I found it interesting that the low cost Island Mist Peach Apricot Chardonnay was number one...may be the cheapest kit on the list! It is also bubbling away right behind me! I have to admit that folks around here tend to say Oh my! This is wayyy too sweeeet! As they suck their glass dry and grab the bottle for more. It gets gone in a hurry!
Would be very interesting to know the tweaks and details of their crafting.
