The Wine Thread

[TooLiveBrew]

if you subscribe to the idea that there is no known way to to tell whether one thing is "better" (whatever that may mean) than another thing, than any distinction between things of the same type is lost.

 

One thing I noted about the initial article that was linked was that (iirc) 48% of tasters could differentiate. So, to say that people can't tell the difference isn't even correct. 1 of every 2 tasters could.

[strawbossisevil]

The reason your argument is misplaced is because if you subscribe to the idea that there is no known way to to tell whether one thing is "better" (whatever that may mean) than another thing, than any distinction between things of the same type is lost.

I guess I didn't say that one wine couldn't be better than another. What I'm saying is, that it isn't dependent upon price. You are equally likely to find a good cheap wine as you are to find a good expensive wine. So, instead of spending big dollars on the expensive stuff, find a good cheap wine and enjoy the savings.

And then you mention that Consumer Reports likes Yellow Tail. By your standards, so what? According to you, any distinction between wines is meaningless, so what does it matter that one testing group likes the wine? This seems to be a case of you favoring a reviewer who has a favorable view of a cheap wine that you like, or, in other words, confirmation bias, the same thing you are accusing the wine tasters of.

My point was, even in the view of some wine tasters there quality isn't solely dependent upon price. (And for the record, I don't drink much Yellow Tail, so no, it isn't confirmation bias). When I drink wine, it is often the Trader Joes variety or wine from the Cedarburg Winery or a friend's homemade stuff (which he makes from his own grapes). If I have a bias, it came about because of what I read the scientists have found in regard to the human ability to objectively taste and distinguish expensive wine from cheap wine. Essentially, that it is a skill few have, even among supposed wine experts (per their studies). Expensive wine, is, to a certain extent the snake oil of our generation IMO. It isn't essentially better, and can receive a higher price for other reasons than taste (even most wine aficionados will admit that).

I also don't really understand the idea that wine is the one thing that

is going to get better and better as it gets cheaper and more mass

produced. Every other product's quality suffers (at least to some extent) when it

undergoes that process, but for some reason, wine will be the exception.

Because small local wineries (such as the Cedarburg winery) put out a very good product at cheap prices it forces the bigger companies to improve as well. It is like, in the beer wars. These microbrewers create all of these awesome, delicious, beers, and so the big corporations like Miller and Coors have to come out with their own version of microbrews lest they be ignored as many go from the cheap lagers to something more complex.

As to the overall talk of experts, when you start to discredit the work of the entire body of experts in one subjective field, you sort of necessarily cast doubt on the idea of experts in any subjective field (again, not a view I am totally unsympathetic to). So, I don't see why you would hold the work of social scientists in any greater regard than you hold the work of oenophiles (in other words, none).

I already admitted as much. I trust social scientists more than I do wine tasters. In part because their work has shown the professional wine tasters to be, in many cases, incapable of determining the more expensive wine. If the experiments run by the scientists show that to be the case with professionals, what can be expected of those who are not professionals. I'm not saying that there is no one who can taste the difference 100% of the time between an expensive and cheap wine, but there are not many according to scientists. I think the scientists essentially confirm or reject the abilities the wine experts say they have. If they have such an ability, they should be capable of proving it. Which in many cases they have not been capable of doing. Should wine experts not be tested in this way? And if testing essentially invalidates their claimed talent, are we expected to continue to trust their opinion?

 

Look, if you enjoy your vino, and you are convinced that you can tell the difference between an expensive and a cheap wine. More power (and less money) to you. But, if you recognize that really, most people unless highly trained (and even some who are highly trained) can not tell the difference between a $50 bottle of wine and a $10 bottle of wine, then it makes all sense in the world to buy cheap.

TooLive: When asked which wine was the more expensive when given two choices, a simple guess would have choosen the correct wine half of the time. The fact that the results essentially reflected the same percentages as a simple guess suggest that the average drinker has a 50/50 chance of determining whether a wine is cheaper or more expensive. If a more expensive wine could truly be recognized by taste, more than 50% of drinkers should have recognized it. One in two tasters honestly believed that the cheaper wine was the more expensive.

 

I suppose it would confirm my theory even more, if they would have asked the same question multiple times to see if the same 50% would get it right each time...but I find the results of the studies fairly convincing, especially when added to the one showing the wine experts failing to accurately judge the wines placed before them.

 

This also reminds me of the big Miller, Bud, Coors taste test, where the people were asked what their favorite of the three was. They were then, without the visual stimuli of the bottles, given a sip of each, and then asked which one was their favorite. People were able to match their favorite American style lager only a third of the time. Point being, taste is more about perception and visual stimuli than it is about taste in and of itself.

[TooLiveBrew]

When asked which wine was the more expensive when given two choices

 

Ah, I should've gone back & re-read that article. I didn't remember it was only out of 2 choices.

[JoeHova]

Because small local wineries (such as the Cedarburg winery) put out a very good product at cheap prices it forces the bigger companies to improve as well. It is like, in the beer wars. These microbrewers create all of these awesome, delicious, beers, and so the big corporations like Miller and Coors have to come out with their own version of microbrews lest they be ignored as many go from the cheap lagers to something more complex.

This argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Microbrews are more expensive (some are much, much more expensive) than the cheap swill the big breweries focus on. I don't know much about how the wine market is segmented but judging by your wine argument and this analogy, you seem to be making the case that Miller will abandon Miller Lite if a tiny percentage of beer drinkers decide to drink microbrews instead. I think we can all agree that is not going to happen so I don't see why you would assume the equivalent would happen with wine.

 

Your argument seems to boil down to claiming that quality doesn't matter, unless it's cheap. I don't get that, it doesn't seem consistent.

 

People were able to match their favorite American style lager

only a third of the time. Point being, taste is more about perception

and visual stimuli than it is about taste in and of itself.

Or, the other way that could be read is that most people are stupid and ignorant and what they can or can't do doesn't matter. Unless you are going to decide what you like based on what me and some other guy say.

[logan82]

strawbossisevil wrote:

People were able to match their favorite American style lager

only a third of the time. Point being, taste is more about perception

and visual stimuli than it is about taste in and of itself.

Or, the other way that could be read is that most people are stupid and ignorant and what they can or can't do doesn't matter. Unless you are going to decide what you like based on what me and some other guy say.

I thought their point in Beer Wars was that all the main light American lagers were made to be as tasteless and bland as possible to appeal to the biggest group of people possible. In fact I think that is what they stated.

[JoeHova]

I thought their point in Beer Wars was that all the main light American lagers were made to be as tasteless and bland as possible to appeal to the biggest group of people possible. In fact I think that is what they stated.

That makes sense too. Which would also mean that the results are not necessarily applicable to other situations.

[strawbossisevil]

Your argument seems to boil down to claiming that quality doesn't matter, unless it's cheap. I don't get that, it doesn't seem consistent.

My argument has nothing to do with quality, and it has everything to do with taste/price. Here are two axioms to consider:

1) Higher price is not equal to higher quality. (It can be, but in many cases it can also have a lot to do with various other economic factors, supply/demand, name recognition, price gouging etc.)

2) Higher price is not equal to better taste.

Point is, quality/taste is not dependent on cost. There are high quality/good tasting cheap wines, and low quality/poor tasting cheap wines. Just as there are high quality/good tasting expensive wines and low quality/poor tasting expensive wines. Studies have shown that for the overwhelming majority of people (including self-proclaimed wine experts) you are as likely to find a wine that is as good tasting among the cheap wines as you are among the expensive wines. However, the visual and mental stimuli and expectations of a more expensive wine can give even the most expert wine drinkers the perception that a wine is better than it actually is. This was illustrated by the wine experts rating highly the wine in the expensive looking bottles, while rating as poor the wine in the cheap looking bottles - despite the fact that the wine used in the experiment was exactly the same. It is the placebo effect, only applied to expensive fermented grape juice.

The Beer Wars illustration proved this as well. Each person went into the discussion claiming that they had a favorite American style lager and could pick it from the others. Yet, in the experiment itself, only about a third could do so. They believe that their favorite beer was better than the others and it was completely based on a preconceived impression based on visual marketing and expectations. Yet, once the visual stimuli was taken away, they couldn't recognize the difference in taste between what they claimed was best and the other two (because in all actuality there was no difference in taste). So essentially what made their chosen beer the "better" beer was solely a matter of perception rather than fact. I don't think that wine is incredibly different...take a wine of equal taste and flavor, and our minds will tell us that the more expensive one must be better, and so we believe it to be better and it impacts how we experience the wine. But, take away the visual stimuli and anticipation, and the difference between the good tasting cheap bottle and the good tasting expensive bottle is minimized if not negated entirely. That is how our human brain works, and it is fascinating how it can be deceived by marketing and other external stimuli.

Once you know how that the brain works this way, a person can realize that often spending a larger amount of money may simply be paying for a perception of quality, and a perception of taste, rather than actual quality or taste.

[logan82]

In other words buy an expensive bottle once and keep filling it for your dinner guests.

[tristarscoop]

My two favorite rieslings are Righteous Riesling and Monchhof. Righteous Riesling is about $10 a bottle. In Milwaukee, I find it at Vino 100 in the Third Ward and Discount Liquour on Oklahoma. Monchhof is more $20 a bottle and I find that at Ray's on North in Tosa.

 

As a Riesling fan, I also really, really like Wollersheim Wineries River Gold and that's screwcap and $10 a bottle and I get that at Pick N Save.

[LouisEly]

Oh, there are always exceptions, particularly with certain grapes. Ridge makes a great zinfandel blend and Menage a' Trois makes a good red blend, both for around $10-$15, however I certainly can tell the difference between those two and Ferrari-Carano's Tresor blend. Part of it is the grape being used, part of it is the year and how good that year was for growing conditions in that area (most wines from 2000 from the Napa/Sonoma area are very good because it was a great year for growing grapes), part of it is leaving it in the bottle for the right amount of time for the right grape.

 

But I guarantee you I can tell the difference between a Tresor or a Cain V meritage than any $10-$15 blend, or any wine-by-the-glass I have had at any restaurant.

[GAME05]

i barely know wine, but i'd bet i could tell the difference between a good wine and a bad one. i know beer and i can tell the difference between even Budweiser and Miller, so i don't see why i couldn't make an easier distinction with wine.

[GAME05]

whew. i feel like i should be posting my reviews of a wine after my first glass but not my fourth.