Independent corroboration that identity blinding does not make a sensory ranking timeless or perfectly repeatable.
The repeatability caution is paired with a concrete divergence between this result and Minnick's own prior observations.
Minnick characterizes a blind tasting as one moment and says that, if the flight were poured again, the winner might finish in the middle. Old Grand-Dad 114 won despite never previously finishing above fourth in his blind tastings and receiving a moderate earlier book review.
Article lines 46–56
The Results
The Results
Paraphrase, comparison, and locator checked against the public article on 2026-08-25.
Evidence
Minnick characterizes a blind tasting as one moment and says a repeat of the flight might move the winner into the middle. Old Grand-Dad 114 won despite no prior blind finish above fourth and a moderate earlier book assessment.
Locator
The Results, article lines 46–56.
Context
The repeatability warning is paired with a concrete divergence between this event and the same taster's earlier observations.
Research boundary
Verified against the source on 2026-08-25. The evidence supports temporal and protocol limits on rankings, not a conclusion that professional tasting is arbitrary.