[HN Gopher] Is wine fake? ___________________________________________________________________ Is wine fake? Author : ctoth Score : 178 points Date : 2022-11-21 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (asteriskmag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (asteriskmag.com) | anononaut wrote: | I've heard similarly for years, especially from a sommelier. What | I've always wondered is if the same holds true for fine teas, | whiskeys, and coffees. | wolframhempel wrote: | More expensive wine doesn't necessarily taste "better" - as | better is a highly subjective experience, specific to the | individuals preferences. But it does tend to taste more | "complex", e.g. like more different things at once, and more | elegant, e.g. containing rarer flavour notes like oak or | earthyness in reds or clearer mineralic taste in whites. | | Also, in wine, the price to value ratio is anything but linear. | In most European countries, once you've made it past the 8 euro | mark, you can get some great wines that get a lot better up to | about 30 euro a bottle. After that,paying an additional 100 only | gets you a marginally better wine, if at all. | | Overall though, the best advice is to drink whatever you enjoy. | caseyross wrote: | Yep, and it can be argued that this kind of complexity spectrum | is the foundation of connoisseurship itself, in any domain. The | journey from amateur to expert is one of becoming bored with | simple, easy-to-understand things, and gradually seeking out | more complicated things to satisfy one's curiousity. | jsbg wrote: | if you like wine at all, then there is absolutely a correlation | between enjoyment and price; that the correlation isn't 1.0 | doesn't mean that wine is fake | EugeneOZ wrote: | "Your classiest friend invites you to dinner. They take out a | bottle of Chardonnay that costs more than your last..." | | Why you need this water? | [deleted] | etempleton wrote: | Wine is just fermented grapes. It is not magic. Expensive bottles | of wine may be better on average, but largely just because they | put in even more quality controls and so deliver a more | consistent wine. It is not magnitudes of a difference. | | People talk about wine like it is magic or high art. That there | is something deeper to understand. There really isn't. | rfrey wrote: | But grapes are not all the same: besides the taste of grapes | varying depending on the soil, climate, orientation to the sun | etc., there is also the judgement of when to harvest. Once in | harvest season grapes can approach and then pass the desirable | sugar level in a matter of days. | | During the winemaking process there are many variables that | cannot be codified from season to season because of variation | in the grapes, such as increasing or decreasing acidity (and | how), fermentation temperature, adjusting tannins, and probably | more. | pbreit wrote: | I have a theory on the Pepsi challenge: Pepsi is sweeter and so | it performs better in a single taste test but is gross when drunk | frequently. | fegu wrote: | I thought this was a well established fact. | drbeast wrote: | Yes, wine is fake just like the moon landing, vaccine efficacy, | and the election /s | | Sorry I couldn't help myself! | bergenty wrote: | The entire field is absolute hogwash. Blind testers can't tell | the difference. I was mad the other day because I saw wine | glasses categorized by what kind of wine should go in them-- give | me a break. | rfrey wrote: | I made a career limiting move at my first job when I arranged a | blind wine tasting at the house of the CEO, who was a pretentious | wine snob. I'd have been fine if I stuck to $40-50 bottles but I | snuck in some Gato Negro from Chile, then made sure everyone knew | when that was the CEO's favourite. | | Started my first company shortly thereafter, probably that | incident is as responsible as anything else for my | entrepreneurial path. | stephc_int13 wrote: | Nope, wine is not fake. | | Some are better than others, depending on many factors, and this | is not up for debate. | | Of course, there is also a lot of bullshit at the higher end of | the price spectrum. | lkrubner wrote: | I worked at WineSpectator.com in 2012-2013. I'll say this in | their favor: the wine tastings were blind. A bunch of interns | would set up the wine tasting, pouring the wine into glasses and | then hiding the bottles. Only after everything was setup were the | editors allowed into the room. So when the editors drank the | wine, they had no idea if they were drinking a $9 bottle or a | $900 bottle. They had to focus on the taste and balance, and | write their report. Only afterwards were they told which wine | they had tasted. | | Having said that, I'll also mention, the way the editors | struggled for new adjectives did sometimes make me laugh: | | "a vast, hearty body, notes of blue and a hint of graphite steel" | | "a radiance similar to the sun at dawn, a strong body, notes of | orange" | hbrn wrote: | Maybe some of them were synesthetes? | alvarezbjm-hn wrote: | In that event, do you know if the 900$ bottles were qualified | as more enjoyable than the 9$ bottles? | | For instance, in Costa Rica, one year, many wine drinkers | prised this wine as exceptionally good, specially consideringn | it was very very inexpensive and not even packaged in a glass | bottle. | | https://vino.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CLOS-DE-PIRQUE-CA... | | I can't remember the exact number, but it cost between $5 and | $10. That was over 10 years ago | Havoc wrote: | >notes of blue | | I'm so stealing that | [deleted] | ineptech wrote: | It's a running joke in my circle to describe the taste of any | expensive wine, beer or coffee as, "strident, yet | insouciant." | metadat wrote: | Word of the day: Insouciant | | _French adjective_ | | Translated definitions: _Carefree, careless, reckless_ | NoboruWataya wrote: | I have gotten fairly into coffee but I struggle to | independently pick up these subtle notes. I'll take a sip, | struggle to put any concrete words on the taste, and then read | the tasting notes and (honestly) think "ah of course, yes I | definitely get that". But I'm sure it's all just the power of | suggestion. | | (An exception is some Ethiopian beans which have an | unmistakable blueberry aroma and taste that they are famous | for.) | | I've stopped worrying too much about "advancing" past that | level. Now I just buy the coffee, read the notes, enjoy | experiencing the sensations that have been placed in my head. | Is it "connoisseurship"? Is it a placebo? Who cares, it's fun! | WaxProlix wrote: | It might be useful to you - it definitely was for me - to get | a few french presses of strikingly different coffees that are | 'emblematic' of certain flavor profiles. This was a long time | ago, so I just used Starbucks blends (sorry current me) but | you could certainly do something even more telling nowadays. | So you'd get a yergachiffe that was definitely blueberry, but | then a slightly different Ethiopian bean that's very lemony, | and some Arabian style Indonesian beans for Spice characters, | a Guatemalan or something for nuttiness, etc. | Stratoscope wrote: | I roast my own coffee and buy most of my green beans from Sweet | Maria's. | | Maria's husband Tom writes the tasting notes for each variety, | such as... | | _Rwanda Dry Process Macuba_ | | "Berry notes, floral impression, ripe blackberry, blueberry, | fruited acidity, darker roasts tie in delicious bittersweet | undertones, like strawberries dipped in chocolate sauce." | | _Yemen Al Qafr Hawari_ | | "Sweet, somewhat rustic, notes of pistachio cookie, malted | chocolate, ginger powder, sesame candies, corn syrup, tobacco | leaf. Super chocolatey dark roasts." | | I swear (even though I know I'm wrong) that he just makes this | stuff up. | surement wrote: | > I swear (even though I know I'm wrong) that he just makes | this stuff up. | | I don't know if this in particular is made up or not. But | tasting notes, especially of the marketing kind, can be a | collection of notes from different preparation methods, | consumption temperatures, and, most likely, from being drank | next to other coffees that taste different and might bring | out each other's individual accents. | nkrisc wrote: | I don't think I could ever tell two different coffee | varieties apart, but I can definitely tell good coffee from | bad coffee. Though that's probably mostly about the roast and | freshness more than anything. So there's probably _something_ | to it but I imagine most of it is unintentional bullshit. | dahfizz wrote: | I got gifted a coffee subscription recently, and I was | actually surprised how different each coffee was. | | I think almost anyone could tell the difference between | different coffees side by side. I just don't think people | are super focused on the coffee flavor when they drink | their regular brew. | jb_s wrote: | I'm probably pretty accurate differentiating African from | South American coffees, the flavours are pretty different | _. I 'm not that great at this sort of stuff either, | certainly not a food critic. But hey, some people can't | tell the diff between pepsi and coke. | | _ Assumes they're roasted nicely, otherwise it's comparing | ashtrays with pencil shavings. | garrickvanburen wrote: | +1 for Sweet Marias | EpiMath wrote: | I've also been roasting coffee from Sweet Maria's for many | years, and the thing that's useful is that I learned how Tom | will describe flavors that I like. So, whether he calls it | "hazelnut" or "almond" doesn't matter, but when he says | "hazelnut" there is a flavor I enjoy that isn't there when he | writes "almond"... and some other things like when he writes | 'crowd pleasing" there is likely to be a lot of balance... | over time the descriptions have become more and more useful | to me! | twelvechairs wrote: | Good wine experts give descriptions that arent just made up but | based on a range of real scents - its standard in a sommelier | school to have an aroma kit of tens to a hundred or so scents | used as comparisons. Its a few hundred dollars investment for a | good one. | bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: | Those quotes made me laugh and reminded me heavily of weed | reviews. | | Fun tidbit - The difference in aroma, appearance, flavor, and | experience of a $9 eighth of cannabis versus a $900 eighth of | cannabis would likely be noticeable even to an amateur. | | You don't necessarily need to be a Ganjier[0] to tell. | | Efforts to homogenize it and remove labeling do serve to remove | brand bias which is why it is standard now at cannabis cups - | but still the quality shines through - literally sometimes. | | But when it gets down to reviews and describing experiences we | are all limited by the English language. | | Some quotes from my own reviews: | | "The insides almost looked like the outside of a banana slug. | That kind of yellow."[1] | | "Beyond the citrus notes, the smell is definitely honeydew to | me, not cantaloupe."[2] | | [0] https://ganjier.com [1] | https://thehighestcritic.com/reviews/cultivar-review-pleazur... | [2] https://thehighestcritic.com/reviews/strain-review- | melonade-... | rufus_foreman wrote: | "a hint of rotting grapes, notes of a bar fight" | m463 wrote: | During covid a friend tried a "smell training" kit from amazon | and I bought one too. (pretty fun, with rose, lemon, eucalyptus | and clove) | | basically, some essential oils of one smell at a time. | | Looking at more extensive smell kits, there is a huge jump in | price if you get a "master wine aroma kit". They can have many | many scents. | | It might just be putting names to smells, but I also wonder if | you can actually develop or enhance your sense of smell (and | therefore the aromatic parts of taste)? | VBprogrammer wrote: | I've little doubt that when smell was an important part of | finding and identifying food people would have better trained | senses. Whether a kit from Amazon can enhance your sense of | smell, not sure. Certainly not without spending a lot of time | with it. | [deleted] | gspencley wrote: | There have been a lot of blind wine tastings done and the | results are always interesting. Sometimes cheap bottles score | as high, or higher than vintages. Other times people can spot | the cheap "carton" wine easily. | | My wife and I love to cook, have discussed opening our own | restaurant, have eaten at lots of very expensive "haute | cuisine" restaurants and have tasted lots of wines. | | Part of the "problem" is that taste is subjective and can be | influenced through suggestion. So the atmosphere, the price, | the meal pairing can all affect a person's appreciation of the | glass. | | I remember an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit where they | had a "water sommelier" at a restaurant who would upsell | customers on speciality bottles of water and they were all | filled with the same tap water from the same garden hose at the | back of the restaurant. The results were fascinating. Subjects | swore they tasted different from one another. | | The real question, in my opinion, is whether a high-priced | bottle is "worth it" by as near-objective standards as | possible. In other words, given two bottles of different | prices, all else being equal, would the average person prefer | the taste of one over the other? | | That varies widely from one wine to another. My wife and I have | enjoyed a good vintage but we are also perfectly content with a | $15 bottle from a local vineyard here in Ontario, which is our | "go to." I'm equally partial to a $15 Rothschild Merlot or | Pinot Noir and I wonder if the truly exceptional wines that | I've tasted at restaurants were more about the environment, the | food pairing, the company and the occasion than they were about | the flavour in isolation. | nonrandomstring wrote: | > subjective and can be influenced through suggestion. So the | atmosphere, the price, the meal pairing can all affect... | | Music is a massive factor [1] | | [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/effects-of-music-on- | sales-20... | p1necone wrote: | The secret is that a lot of cheap wine is pretty darn good. I | imagine there's somewhat of a correlation between price and | quality, especially at the absolute bottom end of the pricing | scale. But it's a very loose correlation. | Agingcoder wrote: | Not a lot, but quite a bit. Winemakers have told me that | they can't sell everything cheaply, and not only for basic | economic reasons : if it's too cheap, lots of people won't | buy it! | | As to the matter of price, most of my wine tasting friends | (including some with proper wine collections) are perfectly | ok paying 5-10 euros for a bottle, as long as they like the | wine - some of them have even made it a specialty to find | good and cheap wine. | | At the other end, I was once served wine without knowing | what it was at a friend's place. I took a sip, then | something happened in my head, and I started crying (I cry | when food is really good) . I still remember that | particular bottle, and the, well, infinite landscape that | had suddenly opened in my mind (I know it sounds utterly | ridiculous , but this is how it felt). No other wine has | had the same effect on me, and it turns out the bottle was | worth about 400 euros! | hef19898 wrote: | Yep, there is correlation between my perceived quality and | price, et the very cheap end of wine. It gets less | pronounced the more expensive it gets so, and above certain | threshold it is a lot of branding. | | So, I think the biggest problem with all those blind wine | tastings is that they equate price with quality. Because | those two are, as goes for everything in life, only ever so | loosely related. | ghaff wrote: | VERY rarely I do a premium wine tasting in California wine | country. And, yeah, I kinda get it. There are subtle | differences in some of the high-end wines as opposed to | midrange stuff. But I'm actually happy with even the better | box wines (however crappy the low-end stuff is) and I'd | much rather spend disposable income on a better bottle of | whisky or a better cheese. | jcadam wrote: | Quantity has its own quality :) | | ...except Franzia, which sucks. | | For those among us who have recently been laid off - Bota | Box Nighthawk Black is a decent/drinkable red if you're on | a budget. | bombcar wrote: | This is a _huge secret_ across so many different markets; | it 's insane. The one we may be most familiar with is | computers, of course - even a bargain-basement computer | today is an absolute beast compared to 10+ years ago. | Entire classes of "cheap foods" have disappeared because we | are so rich we can make everything "good" - meaning the | bargain-basement stuff is now often higher-quality than | midrange stuff of 20/50/100 years ago. | | Hot dogs are a decent example, they're all now "meat" and | many are "pure beef" when they used to be the disastrous | remains of who knows what. And even they are being | destroyed by just how cheap hamburger is - the original | fast food was hot dogs and that's almost entirely gone now. | randomdata wrote: | _> the original fast food was hot dogs and that 's almost | entirely gone now._ | | Curious about this history. According to Wikipedia, fast | food was common during antiquity, while the hotdog wasn't | invented until the 1400s. White Castle seems to be | recognized as the origin of modern day fast food and it | opened as a hamburger joint. | bombcar wrote: | Fair enough, maybe not the originallest, but some of the | now hamburger chains started out as hot dog chains, of | which there's one? left IIRC. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl%27s_Jr.#History | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog | randomdata wrote: | Isn't present day Carl's Jr. just Hardee's by another | name? Hardee's began as a burger joint as well. | | According to research from the University of Guelph, | hotdogs are comparatively uncommon in fast food because | hotdogs are harder to cook consistently and have a | shorter window of enjoyability which makes them less | suited to fast food than hamburgers. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Isn't present day Carl's Jr. just Hardee's by another | name? | | The corporate parent of Carl's Jr. bought Hardee's in | 1997, but Carl's stayed pretty much the same. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | I think Hardee's and Carl's Jr. were bought by the same | company and then evolved towards each other. | bombcar wrote: | Carl's Jr was 'transferred' to CKE (Carl Karcher | Enterprises) which then acquired Hardees, and Hardees | became Carl's Jr in everything but name (as far as I can | tell). What was interesting is the absolute numbers: The | "merger" created a chain of 3,828 restaurants - 3,152 | Hardee's outlets in 40 states and 10 foreign countries | and 676 Carl's Jr. outlets primarily in California. | bombcar wrote: | Yeah, I was thinking of the ubiquity of "street food hot | dogs" which are now basically gone (Costco still has hot | dogs, however, and baseball stadiums are required to have | hot dogs). | Retric wrote: | In antiquity it was more what we might call street food | or fast casual. | | What really defines fast food is mass production and | uniformity. | pas wrote: | Also big brands usually deliver on consistency. Making the | same (or very similar) wine year from year on the order or | hundreds of thousands of bottles ... yeah, that takes some | skill, and favorable location doesn't hurt either :) For | example see the big wineries in New Zealand. | | But usually if you want something that's exceptional you | have to spend a lot on throwing away the unexceptional | parts. Not every year will be good, and even if the weather | was good there's still no guarantee the wine will be | amazing. Yet the costs are there. That's why there's a very | hefty premium on brands that _only_ deliver the top-top-top | quality. (Obviously they sell the grapes /wine that did not | make it under a different brand, but sssh.) | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | I assume the big brands get part of the way there by | mixing old and new wine, though. | taneq wrote: | Very true. I live in a wine region and an $8 bottle from | the local booze shop can sometimes be found in restaurants | on the other side of the world for $50+. Is not just that | cheap wine is often as good as expensive wine, sometimes | it's exactly the same thing. | 78124781 wrote: | I once met a local winemaker from a tiny winery in a | foreign country who was proud to say that their wine was | being served a restaurant in the US. I asked them how | much they thought the wine would be priced at given that | it was their entry-level wine. The winemaker estimated | $20-25. We looked it up--it was $60. | kube-system wrote: | Above $60, you're mostly paying for name, provenance, or | prestige rather than taste. | surement wrote: | Just because you don't know how to appreciate well-made | things doesn't mean that they're strictly ostentatious. | kube-system wrote: | You can absolutely get a top quality wine for <$60. Even | the fancy 18th century European wineries that sell | $10,000 bottles of wine will tell you this. | | Scarcity is the number one factor that determines the | price of an expensive wine. A good quality wine from a | recent vintage will cost less than an equally desirable | wine from an older vintage, simply because people haven't | drank most of it yet. | mihaaly wrote: | I appears so that they talk about the sell price and not | about how well it is made. | taneq wrote: | How'd you get 'strictly' from 'mostly'? | surement wrote: | added it in after reading my comment but not re-reading | the parent | triceratops wrote: | "Ostentation - pretentious and vulgar display, especially | of wealth and luxury" | | To a person who can't tell the difference between cheap | and expensive wine, expensive wine is "strictly | ostentatious" by definition. | lvass wrote: | Absolutely true in South america. I've had a ton of | different sub-$5 wines. In my experience, if you randomly | buy 20 bottles of $5 wines, one is better than a $100 | bottle, plus you also get some 5 great wines, 10 good ones | and the rest works for cooking. | | The best wine I've ever drank cost less than $3 and was | produced in a tropical (21 South), 800m altitude region of | Minas Gerais, Brazil. Never assume wine is bad because it's | cheap or from somewhere. | davnicwil wrote: | > The best wine I've ever drank | | Do you remember what this was called, or specifically | where? If I'm ever there I'd love to find this! | lvass wrote: | Quinta dos Guimaraes, from Santa Barbara do Monte Verde. | It's super hard to find and they might be defunct, it's | been quite a few years. | voldacar wrote: | It really depends a lot on the region. For example, price | and quality don't correlate that much in Burgundy. It's | easy to spend a few hundred dollars on a mediocre bottle. | retrac wrote: | I learned the secret in my mid-20s whilst brewing my own | cider as a poor student. | | Take some decent apple juice without preservatives. Add a bit | of yeast; baking yeast for bread at the supermarket will do | just fine. Observe basic sanitation principles. Add some | sugar, perhaps 150 g per litre of juice. Leave the concoction | in a cool, dry place for a few months. A one-way seal for the | CO2 release is preferable (a balloon works) but is not | strictly required; leave the cap on loose. Carefully pour off | the result into a new vessel. Let this settle for another | month. | | A very palatable drink results at about 4 - 5% alcohol by | volume. People figured this out thousands of years ago. And | they did not have plastic bottles, germ theory, or infinite | hot water on tap. It's trivial to make an alcoholic beverage. | The rest is finesse. And posturing. | spelunker wrote: | Beer was probably "discovered" when mashed up grains | started fermenting wildly. It's definitely not difficult to | make alcohol if one desires! | | I do think something can be said to effort put in vs what | you get however - I've enjoyed some very good beer that | took a little bit more work than letting some grain lying | around ferment. Of course, on the other hand, plenty of | beers are brewed in Belgium using essentially that method, | so it all comes down to one's taste I suppose. | tomcam wrote: | Next time I'm in the pen expect a call from me for that | recipe | shrubble wrote: | Obligatory Pruno link from Modern Drunkard magazine (some | profanity) : https://drunkard.com/11-03-jailhouse-3/ | Firmwarrior wrote: | haha, that was a great read | | > I expelled all my breath and sucked down another glass. | Vinegary, yeasty, with a rusty shank of an aftertaste. I | was feeling a slight buzz, but I didn't think I could | stomach another glass. It was booze all right, but two | glasses was my non-incarcerated limit. | Zamicol wrote: | "Penn & Teller's Bullshit": | | https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=295904514122934 | ramesh31 wrote: | >My wife and I love to cook, have discussed opening our own | restaurant, have eaten at lots of very expensive "haute | cuisine" restaurants and have tasted lots of wines. | | Please don't make the mistake of thinking "I like to cook" | means "I would like to run a restaraunt". They're two | completely different things. | wwweston wrote: | Can you elaborate on this? I'm sure there's more to it and | it could be great to know what some of the specifics are, | but it also seems like _someone_ who likes to cook is going | to need to be present for a good restaurant | [deleted] | deadbunny wrote: | Think of the distance between "I like playing video | games" and "I want to work for an AAA developer". | wwweston wrote: | "I like playing video games" would be analogous to "I | like dining out." | | "I like making video games" would be analogous "I like to | cook." | | Of course "I like making video games" might _not_ mean | "I want to work for an AAA developer", but the reasons | why would probably be different than those you wouldn't | want to make a commercial indie title / open your own | restaurant. | padjo wrote: | Watch a few episodes of Kitchen Nightmares and you'll get | the gist. | 2b3a51 wrote: | Perhaps a quick skim of Anthony Bourdain's _Kitchen | Confidential_ might help. His position is that running a | restaurant is very different from cooking for yourself | and friends. | | But obviously many people do set up and run restaurants. | triceratops wrote: | The restaurant industry is brutal, low margin, and cut- | throat. There's long hours and extremely hard work, and | customers who don't give a shit about you. If you have a | successful restaurant, it's probably because you have a | good location (modulo those Michelin-starred gems in out- | of-the-way small towns). So the landlord will do their | best to extract any surplus value you generated through | your skill and ingenuity. I've never worked in the | industry and I've still heard of all of this. | | Professional cooks have a completely different working | style to skilled amateurs. They move faster and more | precisely, and are able to juggle far more things at a | time. It's a massive step up. | | Plus the skillset involved in cooking well is orthogonal | to what's needed to run a successful restaurant. Your | major costs are labor, rent, and raw materials, and you | need a certain personality to drive those down. Customers | tend to be price-sensitive (again, apart from those high- | end places) so you don't have as much power on the | revenue side. | | I love cooking. I'm never working in the food business. | umanwizard wrote: | Indeed they're different things, but they're surely at | least correlated. (A workaholic personality is probably | more strongly correlated) | kube-system wrote: | Potentially that may have been the content of their | discussion. | spockz wrote: | You seem very experienced at wine and food, so I hope you | know this. I can taste a wine and like it just fine if I | haven't eaten or drink anything else. But if I eat anything, | even just the tiniest bit, the wine to me just becomes sour | and I can only taste the alcohol. This completely ruined wine | for me. Is this common? | coding123 wrote: | whoa that is weird. When I taste wine these days, I can | ONLY taste vinegar. I'm not even sure why that is. | zasdffaa wrote: | I don't have synesthesia to any notable degree but what you're | describing kind of makes sense as being it. Not tastes for me, | but sounds can elicit such responses eg. a sound having | graphite steel I can well imagine. Or other things that would | baffle another person. | | Frankly, "notes of blue and a hint of graphite steel" sounds | too remote from normal experiences to be consciously made up - | I mean, who's going to relate to that anyway? | garrickvanburen wrote: | I've blind tasted beer numerous times in multiple different | contexts. | | Even participated in a session called "tasting on the right | side of your brain" all about identifying and interrogating | those more abstract impression. | | As poetic as they are - they carry insight and information both | about the taster and the liquid that - without interrogation | even the taster maybe unaware of. | dehrmann wrote: | > But I recently watched the documentary Somm, about expert wine- | tasters trying to pass the Master Sommelier examination. As part | of their test, they have to blind-taste six wines and, for each, | identify the grape variety, the year it was produced, and tasting | notes (e.g., "aged orange peel" or "hints of berry"). | | Also fresh tennis ball. | pas wrote: | > In 2001 Frederick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked | 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine [...] that one had | been coloured red with a flavourless dye. | | Well, red wine is red because it's colored by the skin of the | grapes. | | I guess the critique is that the tasters were inconsistent, they | used [very] different language for the wine(s). | | Which is definitely interesting. But not that surprising :) | | > "jammy" | | I had no idea what they meant by jammy, but according to google | it's very fruity wine, low acidity, low in tannin. Ah! | JimRoepcke wrote: | I mean sure it runs Windows binaries on Linux, but calling it | fake is a bit harsh. | noodlesUK wrote: | I am no wine guru but I do know one thing for sure. There is | definitely such a thing as _bad_ wine. If paying a little more | would guarantee not having a terrible bottle, that would make me | pretty happy. In the real world I 've not found that to be true | though. | metadat wrote: | The thing is, wine "quality" is entirely subjective. I've not | found much correlation between price and whether I will like it | or not. The only safe bet is that if it tastes too strongly of | vinegar, probably people won't like it as much. But some | European wines (Spain and Italy) intentionally produce wine | with a non-negligible amount of vinegar taste. | | I know of a single maker that only puts out wines that I | consider good or at least okay: Heitz. | | Heitz is pricey though, and a $6 bottle of Barefoot or Charles | Shaw two buck chuck can be just as good or better than a huge | assortment of $50 or $300 bottles of swill. In my experience. | fullshark wrote: | I'd be shocked if you thought there's was actually no | correlation if you're thinking of a price range from $5 to | $100+. The worst wines by far I've had have been the ultra | cheap stuff. Once you get above like $20 or whatever your | personal threshold is though the variance is much smaller in | terms of quality I'd say. | metadat wrote: | You do make a good point; the worst of the worst tend to be | the ultra cheapies. | | With that said, there are unbounded arrays of cheap _and | expensive selections_ that all taste like shit (again, in | my opinion - others likely perceive them differently). | | I've met plenty of people who happily drink something I | consider 100% not palatable or suitable for human | consumption. | fullshark wrote: | Yeah bad (as in unappealing to my palate) expensive wines | are bad in an entirely different unique, "expensive | tasting" way. | sbf501 wrote: | > The thing is, wine quality is entirely subjective. | | The article says it isn't. And I agree. Go buy a two-buck | chuck at Trader Joe's, and a $50 Chateauneuf de Pape from | 2018. One is an acrid, acidic fruit punch, the other is a | balanced soft tannin delight. I guarantee your palette can | tell the difference, or your money back. :) | metadat wrote: | Agreed, they have different qualities. These properties | don't translate to people automatically preferring the | expensive one because it's "better"; it's only "different". | csa wrote: | > a $6 bottle of Barefoot can be just as good or better than | $50 or $300 bottles of swill | | As someone who has blind tasted many wines... | | - I can see not being able to tell a difference between $50 | bottles and $300 bottles, and even preferring the less | expensive option. Some of the tastes can be very subtle, and | sometimes the more expensive wines need to be cellared before | they really start to shine. | | - I honestly don't think I have ever had a $50 plus bottle of | wine that I would not have preferred over Barefoot, which has | approximately zero taste markers of a wine made to taste | good. | | - There are inexpensive wines (sub-$8) that can hold their | own versus $20-30 bottles, but that almost always involves | generous use of oak chips and an audience that doesn't mind | the imbalanced flavor profile. Most people don't mind the | imbalance, especially since the wines are usually | inexpensive, high alcohol, and taste better than wine at a | similar price point. | | - Folks who can't differentiate wine taste may be "non- | tasters". I dislike this term of art, but it's folks who have | fewer taste buds per unit area of their tongue. Tell-tale | signs are people who salt everything and/or use hot sauce to | an extreme level. | | - For folks on a budget who want to drink decent wine, Trader | Joe's Reserve wines ~$10 a bottle) punch way above their | weight. These are basically $20-30 retail bottles of wine | that needed to be cleared at the winery cellars quickly to | make space for a new vintage. "Shiners" is the term of art | for these bottles pre-labeling. | 2devnull wrote: | "honestly don't think I have ever had a $50 plus bottle of | wine that I would not have preferred over Barefoot, which | has approximately zero taste markers of a wine made to | taste good." | | I can't believe that. I've never had barefoot and probably | never will but there's a lot of totally undrinkable, maybe | even semi-poisonous, expensive wine. It's not even rare. If | you buy from a good merchant this is less of a problem but | still, expensive wines go bad, and some were never good to | begin with. | barrkel wrote: | The most likely expensive dud you're going to see is aged | Burgundy reds. Many don't make it. | | Very old red wine (e.g. 30+ years), if it's not fortified | or a dessert wine, is also not particularly pleasant. | I've had some very famous Bordeaux from some celebrated | 70s vintage, a sip from Hedonism Wines in London, and it | was very much not worth it; more than anything else, it | reminded me of clothes in an old person's closet. | | On the other hand, the same day I had a sip of something | sweet from the 19th century - like 1898 or something - | from Crimea, and it wasn't bad. It wasn't great, but it | wasn't bad or undrinkable either. Might have been related | to these batches - | https://quillandpad.com/2020/07/21/the-massandra- | collection-... | csa wrote: | > but there's a lot of totally undrinkable, maybe even | semi-poisonous, expensive wine | | "A lot"? Really? Change your wine merchant if that's the | case. | | That said, sure, I mean, if you want to include flawed | wines like ones with brett, ones that haven't been stored | properly (e.g., in the sun), wines way past the their | peak, etc., then one will certainly run into some bad | wines _at any price point_. | | That's sort of a given, imho, and is in no way a | reflection of the quality of the wine. | | That certainly doesn't in general make the high end wine | "fake" or not worth a higher price (at least to some | point), which is the point of the linked article. | yamtaddle wrote: | I could see one becoming convinced price has no correlation | with quality given the bullshit that's sold in the $10-20 | range. "Why, this was $15 but it's plainly worse than the | $8 bottle I had last week!" There's some real crap in that | bracket, at least around here. Especially French and | Californian. I get the impression France drops their trash | on us (the USA) in that price range, relying on their | national "brand" to sell it for more than it's worth. Above | that range, they're consistently damn good, of course. | | [EDIT] As for Californian wine in that range, it seems to | have a problem with marketing-over-substance. I expect | trying to compete in that range on quality is... | frustrating. | csa wrote: | > I could see one becoming convinced price has no | correlation with quality given the bullshit that's sold | in the $10-20 range. | | Yeah. There seems to be a lot of variability below $20. | That said, it'll you do the math, it's tough to make a | wine with a good and distinct character below $20 for | reds and $15 for whites (I've seen it, but it's | relatively rare). | | Also, totally agree with your edit. California wines have | a lot of challenges with marketing over substance across | the whole range or price points. | jules wrote: | When eating a dish, I can usually identify the ingredients | and spices by flavour, but different wines taste more or | less the same to me. Some taste a bit better than others, | but the difference is minimal. Spending $50 more on the | food in a restaurant is going to make an enormously bigger | difference than spending $50 more on wine. In fact, I find | that _not_ drinking wine at all usually makes for a better | experience if the food is good, because the super strong | flavour of wine destroys your ability to discern flavours | on the next bite. | jb_s wrote: | Not speaking for everyone but I'm pretty sure a lot of | people who love extreme hot sauces, it's not so much the | flavour but that they just want to feel _something_ for | once :o | jasmer wrote: | Yea I think probably most people can tell the difference | between $6, $20 and $50 and then struggle beyond that (and | beyond that it is very subjective). | | But for 'crap' 'ok' and 'good' and 'good+' categories I think | it's actually fairly straight forward. | namdnay wrote: | > wine quality is entirely subjective | | I wouldn't go that far... there are many wines that everyone | agrees are foul. La Villageoise for example? There's a reason | it's 2E/L | | 6USD is what, 5.80E a bottle? That's already a lot more | comfortable | 13415 wrote: | Anything related to taste and smell is partly subjective, | partly intersubjective. The sense of smell varies from person | to person due to genetic differences, different learned | tastes, partial anosmia, etc. This is also the reason why one | like a perfume and another one hates it. The chromatograph | can analyze a substance objectively but every nose smells it | a bit differently. | KineticLensman wrote: | In Croatia many years ago, we ordered the cheapest bottle on | the wine list. It was disgusting. The locals were amazed that | we didn't know to water it down before drinking. | nradov wrote: | When my grandparents lived in Croatia in the pre-WW2 years | they used to mix a little wine into their water because the | water quality was bad. I guess the wine killed the germs, or | at least masked the taste of the water. | aarroyoc wrote: | That's also typical in Spain. In fact, most family | restaurants offer free wine, but it's of that level of | quality, so you usually mix it with sparkling water. | | Also, it's typical of young people to mix cheap wine with | Coca-Cola, and have parties with that. | mauvehaus wrote: | That's actually a fairy delicious way to enjoy cheap wine, | and I dare say it compares favorably to some of the | digestifs in the world. | foobarian wrote: | It's typical to drink watered down wine with routine/non- | fancy/on-the-road meals. The locals call it 'gemist' which is | a germanism (gemischt = mixed). The wine used for this is | bottom of the barrel, since it's a shame to waste good wine | for this purpose. | metadat wrote: | Does the alcohol content end up diluted proportionally to | something like 2-7% vs the usual 12-14%? | betaby wrote: | It is a tradition there? What is the name of that wine? | Barrin92 wrote: | I've done this experiment with friends a few times. Personal | experience. Almost anyone can tell _really shitty_ wine from the | rest, think your one or two bucks cardboard container wine. | Almost nobody can tell a 10 euro bottle from a 100 euro bottle. | | This also goes for other food and drinks. It's the same with | coffee. You can taste really cheap and awful coffee, but if | anyone can tell me they can reliably differentiate between decent | beans and one of those fancy "it was fermented and digested by a | monkey" specialty brands I'm scpetical. | femto wrote: | It's fun to do a "blind tasting party". | | Get a bunch of friends to each bring a bottle. Maybe give a | criteria, like a price range, so people don't feel obliged to | impress with the price tag. | | All bottles are delivered to the kitchen at the beginning of the | night, where the host puts each in a numbered paper bag. Each | attendee gets a score sheet. | | Start serving, either by pouring or just putting a few bottles on | the table at a time. It's a normal party, apart from each person | giving each numbered wine a score, and conversation about the | wine being an icebreaker. | | At the end of the night total up the scores and reveal the | bottles, generally to some hilarity. | | It's fun to throw in a few wildcards. As the host, I threw in a | couple of extra bottles: one well above the price range and | another the cheapest I could find. (Found out after the event | that an attendee also decanted a box into a bottle. All in the | spirit!). I also poured all the left over bits from each bottle | (not glasses!) into a bottle and served that up towards the end | of the night. | | The cheap wildcard came second. The dregs came middle of the pack | and the expensive bottle came below the dregs. It was a fun night | and the guessing game really got people talking about what they | liked and disliked, but they couldn't be pompous about it, unless | they wanted to risk a ribbing at the end of the night. | | It also works with beers or homebrew. | ericlewis wrote: | My family often does this, but more like you have to figure out | which wine is which out of 14 across many varieties and | provenance. My wife and I both got 2nd and 3rd place with only | mixing up two. Though it was less so what is cheap what is | expensive, it is an interesting game nonetheless. We blamed the | many years we spent in Napa on being so good :P | cwkoss wrote: | A fun variation on this is to provide two bottles. Cover the | labels with sheets of paper. | | Pour everyone a serving of each (different color cups works | best), and tell them that one bottle costs less than $10, one | costs $95. | | The group will taste and discuss and usually reach a consensus | on which wine is the better wine. Ask if anyone disagrees. | | Then, you reveal that both bottles were filled with the same | boxed wine. It's really funny. | | I've done this 3 times, and never had anyone suggest that they | were the same wine before the reveal. | erehweb wrote: | If you are interested in this topic, you may find the book "Gulp" | interesting. https://maryroach.net/gulp.html The writer talks | about wine and olive oil tasting, among other things. | 13415 wrote: | I learned to appreciate wines only after I moved to a wine | producing country (Portugal). I cook once a week for my | girlfriend and try to choose a different wine each time. After a | few years you learn a bit, which ones you like and dislike, and | how different wines are. It's a lot of fun. There is nothing fake | about it. | ravenstine wrote: | The "fake" part is the idea that wines are objectively better | than each other. Afficianados can invent their own standards, | and that's fine, but those standards don't need to apply to | people who simply want to _enjoy_ wine. | | What muddies the water is that wine has an association with | aristocracy that has never been had with Coke and Pepsi, or | pizza with pineapple vs no pineapple. | | Sure, wine is more complex than many other tastes, but so is | beer, and beer has mostly been considered a blue collar affair, | historically speaking. | | Everyone is right and wrong at the same time. All wine is good | and all wine sucks. Any given bottle will be a hit or miss, | regardless of price. With price, you may be getting a more rare | varietal, but that doesn't mean your friends will appreciate | it. | | A given wine needs to target its audience. Are your friends | adventurous? Then you might actually consider sharing that | bottle of Sagrantino, as they may appreciate the experience | even if they don't like it that much. But if their tastes are | generally more... conventional, then just go with that $9 | Cabernet Sauvingnon from Trader Joes that can't offend anybody. | Do you have wine snob friends who you want to make jealous? | Then the $300 bottle of whatever is right for you, as you'll | not only be able to gloat but perhaps spend _less_ as you have | an excuse not to crack it open until it "peaks" some time in | the next century. | 13415 wrote: | There is nothing fake about that either. You don't have to | pass a blind test, you usually see the wine. It's the same | with food - the presentation counts, too. Or with almost any | kind of luxury good. Almost any brand is more expensive than | "no name" products even though the production costs are the | same. | | Of course, people can be against luxury goods but the point | is they're not getting it. People pay for brand and prestige, | including some wine affiocionados (though not me). That's | perfectly normal for luxury markets. | | By the way, beer is way less complex than wine. It's not even | remotely comparable, primarily because beers are "designed" | by professional brewers for specific target markets. You | can't do that as easily with wine, it depends more on the | grapes, weather, and location. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I have not partaken, for some time, and when I did, I was an | aficionado of such fine vintages as Mogen David 20/20, Night | Train Express, and Thunderbird. | | However, I have friends that are very much into it, and will | happily spend sick amounts of money on bottles of what to me, is | just spoiled grape juice. | majormajor wrote: | I'm surprised these sorts of articles still get traction? | | Is this just a filter bubble thing? Is it "new" to many people | even though it isn't to me? | | Or do we just like to feel snobby about knowing the truth? | abvdasker wrote: | I think this piece is more of a reaction to the hackneyed | articles we've all seen about how wine knowledge is all bs. | It's a qualification of those conclusions that does a good job | of explaining that the reality is a little more complicated. | gdubs wrote: | We moved to a farm in wine country in the PNW years back, and I | had this 'ah ha' moment. It was the summer before the pandemic, | and we had friends visiting. We sat down to eat a meal we made | with all of this local food. I took a sip of a wine from a | vineyard nearby. That's when the term 'terroir' suddenly made | sense. The wine had the same essence as the food we were eating, | all being from the same region. But it was elevated. It's like, | the celebration of all of this hard agricultural work. The cherry | on top. | | People find ways to turn anything into a game. And status, | striving, gaming - they enter into anything. But for me, I | generally just keep a list of favorites. Reds often give me a | headache, so a good red, to me, is one that does not. But I've | grown to really like Rose, and it doesn't have to be summer. | | Anyway, there's _definitely_ good wine and bad wine. I think | personally a good story contributes a lot more to the value of | wine than its rating. But 'value' can be very subjective. | badrabbit wrote: | I don't disagree but I do have a question about the blind | tasting: Is it possible that knowing about a wine's age or | provenance allows our brain to focus on and look for specific | details? For example, you can feed me meat and I might think it | is delicious but soon after if you tell me it is snake or dog | meat I will vomit all over the place and find that particular | taste offending. | | Isn't taste just a signal interpreted by the brain? | | I am sure you all have seen those experiments with a fake hand | next to the person's but they are blocked from seeing their real | hand, they start feeling touch and pain on the fake hand! Can | taste also be visually and mentally affected by sight or some | other knowledge? | kuon wrote: | My neighbor loves to organize wine tasting session with friends, | one day, he opened some bottle, and when I poured it, I added | some apple juice (about 50%) and nobody in the group noticed | anything. I know that a few expert can actually tell wine apart | and categorize them, but I now know that most of the time people | have no idea :) | IforgotmyID wrote: | In my local supermarket in Spain, they sell wine in a carton | (like milk) for around 80 cents of an euro per litre. It is | perfectly nice if you want to drink a glass with lunch, mix it | with gaseosa in summer (like Sprite) or cook with it. | | They also sell cava for less than 5 euros a bottle. It makes a | roast chicken on Sunday appear somewhat more festive. The first | time a colleague in the UK told me about fruity or orange taste | in wine I was completely perplexed as to what he meant. | sebmellen wrote: | The most interesting part of the article to me was this: | | > _Based on the theory of predictive coding, our brains first | figure out what sensory stimuli should be, then see if there's | any way they can shoehorn actual stimuli to the the expected | pattern. If they can't, then the brain will just register the the | real sensation, but as long as it's pretty close they'll just | return the the prediction. For example, did you notice that the | word "the" was duplicated three times in this paragraph? Your | brain was expecting to read a single word "the," just as it | always has before, and when you're reading quickly, the mild | deviation from expected stimuli wasn't enough to raise any | alarms._ | | I believe Vsauce had a video on this topic one. I'll edit the | content if I find it. | blindriver wrote: | Yes, it's scientifically proven to be fake, but let people have | some fun, what's the big deal? There are worse crimes than | pretending to have the ability to super-taste wine. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | If it takes a super-taster to tell the difference, then I'm safe | paying for $6 Chuck | Enginerrrd wrote: | Interestingly, as I understand Charles Shaw buys suprlus wine | from nice vinyards and blends them to make their offering. So | the wine is likely to be totally inconsistent, but probably ok | to even occasionally good. | | Personally, I think red blends are often better than single | wine varietals. They're often perceived as cheaper, but from a | taste perspective, I find they're usually more balanced in | flavors and more complex as a result. | 78124781 wrote: | I really wonder how much of the suspicion of wine comes from the | class-conflict accoutrements and marketing. | | I used to be a big wine skeptic. It seemed pretentious, | overpriced, and boring. The people who liked it were the kind of | people I disliked. Most of the places in the town I grew up in | all had the same "big reds" at ridiculous prices. Wine was the | thing that cost $12 that you paid $60 for at the local steakhouse | to look important. | | Then, I moved to a lesser-known wine-producing state and started | actually trying wine. It took some time--and there were more than | a few encounters with snobs and commercial puffery that made me | want to rethink it--but it soon opened up into a huge world that | I had no idea about before. It was far more fascinating and | enduring than previous interests in whiskey or craft beer. | | It's a pity that wine gets such a pretentious reputation. It's a | fascinating blend of chemistry, geology, geography, and culture | that at its heart is an agricultural enterprise. | AlbertCory wrote: | I keep teasing this, but my friend Jerry and I have done a whole | series of Triangle Tests on various aspects of making coffee. | We've finally settled on him publishing a Just The Facts, Ma'am | doc, and me publishing the narrative. Real soon now. | | Anyhow: | | Our philosophy is "It doesn't matter what the experts can taste. | What matters is what _you_ can taste. " | | So for wine, it's easy for you & your friends or relatives to put | out three glasses, two the same and one different, and see if the | taster can pick out the outlier. If they can't, why should they | care which one WineSpectator says is better? | IshKebab wrote: | > They look at 6,175 tastings from 17 wine tasting events and | find that, among ordinary people (nonexperts), "the correlation | between price and overall rating is small and negative, | suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines | slightly less." | | Wines at wine tastings are hardly a random selection. They should | look at supermarket wines. | | In my experience paying more (over PS8) definitely increases the | _chance_ of getting a nice bottle, but it doesn 't guarantee it. | But that effect is only true up to maybe PS15 at the most. Above | that you're throwing money away. | jacobsenscott wrote: | > suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive | wines slightly less | | This is me. Every time I decide to splurge on a bottle of wine I | don't like it. Sticking with my 3 liter boxes of costco cabernet. | bsder wrote: | The Pepsi Challenge has _LOTS_ of faults and isn 't a great | example. | | I believe that one of the "debunkings" about the Pepsi Challenge | was that people preferred the initial swig of Pepsi but preferred | Coke if the question was asked after more consumption, after the | beverage had warmed up, etc. Effectively, you could set up the | situation to get people to choose one or the other quite easily. | antognini wrote: | One of my professors in grad school was really into wine and | every couple of years he would put on an after-hours wine tasting | class for a semester. One of the points he made was that there | are absolutely wines which are objectively better and worse and | that experts can reliably tell them apart. He had met enough | experts who could identify a vineyard and vintage blind to know | there was something to it. But sitting on top of that there is a | frothy market that is driven by fads, speculation, and hype. | | He was of the opinion that generally speaking the quality of a | typical wine increases monotonically with price up until around | the $40 range with the big steps around the $5, $10, and $20 | price points. But above $50 or so, you're no longer paying for | higher quality, per se. It's more that you are paying for a | unique flavor profile and reliability. But unless you're seeking | out that particular flavor profile, you can get a bottle that is | just as good for $30-40 (and occasionally even cheaper). And | above a few hundred dollars it's all just fads, speculation, and | hype. (He liked to say that the people who buy those wines have | "more money than sense.") They're good wines, but you can get a | bottle that is just as good for a fraction of the price. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | > "more money than sense." | | I've always enjoyed "more dollars than cents" for the dual | meaning if you know the phrase is supposed to be "sense". | alfalfasprout wrote: | This is IMO where I've arrived at too. Some wine really sucks. | Some wine is incredible. I've definitely been surprised by some | <$20 bottles but in general $50+ wines are not going to have | the same flaws that are common in cheaper bottles. | | With that said... I've had some terrible bottles of $100+ wine | from well regarded wineries. | 2devnull wrote: | Wine makers can easily pick out flaws of different sorts. Wine | tasters and wine makers do not taste wines in the same way | based on my experience. Some flaws, like Bret, can improve the | score of wines given by tasters for certain styles, but wine | makers generally scoff at such flaws. | ethbr0 wrote: | If you're dealing in goods of non-obvious quality, where | total supply volume >> total demand volume, markets get | weird. | | See: beauty products, wine, art | | There are people who can discern quality reliably... but | those people are an extremely small portion of the total | market. | | Consequently, things that are not quality (chiefly, marketing | and price) start to become dominant features. | noughtme wrote: | > Some flaws, like Bret | | I cannot wait for the current trend of brettanomyces | contaminated "natural" wines to die. | barrkel wrote: | Bret and the weird hay / mousey flavour from natural wines | are different things. | | I too am not a fan of natural wines largely because of the | additional flavours, but normal sulphite-laden wine can | come with a dose of bret and it's different - I | particularly enjoy it in some Cote Rotie producers, where | it comes out as a hint of smokey bacon. | acchow wrote: | > But unless you're seeking out that particular flavor profile | | It's not just seeking out a particular flavor profile. If you | want to experience something novel for your mouth and you've | been drinking only $20 bottles for years, you will never | encounter anything new. But if you try $100 bottles, you're | much more likely to accidentally discover something new | (whether you like it or not is subjective) | | Continuously searching for new experiences is an expensive | hobby. | wmil wrote: | > He was of the opinion that generally speaking the quality of | a typical wine increases monotonically with price up until | around the $40 range with the big steps around the $5, $10, and | $20 price points. | | I'm always amused when I hear this, because I live in Ontario. | Our alcohol laws are set up to heavily favour local wines. | | Of course Ontario reds are consistently both more expensive and | worse than foreign wines. | | Higher price doesn't mean higher quality here. | Hermitian909 wrote: | Not OP but good friends with some highend winemakers who hold | a similar but slightly different view, which is that below | $20 dollars (or whatever the breakpoint is now) most vinyards | generally can't afford the processes that allow for the best | class of wine to be _reliably_ produced, and above that price | point, most can afford those processes. | | You do occasionally get cheap wines that hit above their | weight, but that's unusual. | | More common, you get wineries hitting below their weight for | a number of reason the winemakers aren't very good, there are | issues with vinyard, it's a bad harvest, or the winemaker | just wants bigger profits and is trying to convince people | their wine is better than it is. | | As an example of vinyard issues, I know a man whose vinyard | produces very poor wine because his soil is rich in | serpentine, which makes the wine smell funny. Even doing | everything "right" his wine is not going to taste as a good | as that made identically by someone with better soil. | | This does not mean that wines at that price point _must_ be | good. I know someone who made the mistake of buying in a | vinyard that was extremely rich in serpentine | nier wrote: | How does red wine from Ontario end up more expensive than the | one from abroad when the laws are set up to favor the wine | from Ontario? | extragood wrote: | I'd guess cost of labor is a major factor. | | If you buy any California wine, for instance, it was picked | by a migrant worker. Times haven't changed much since | Grapes of Wrath, other than it's typically Latino workers | rather than Dust Bowl refugees. | danielfoster wrote: | Without more information, I would assume that even with | preferential tax treatment Ontario wine could be more | expensive due to economies of scale. Production must be | vastly lower compared to California, France, etc. | nitwit005 wrote: | But, there is the usual trick there. How do you transform your | wine from a $5 wine to a $10 wine? Raise the price by $5. The | assumption of quality is something exploitable. | forgotusername6 wrote: | A friend of mine from uni was really into wine. Won the varsity | wine tasting competition. He bought a case of Italian reds | because he knew it was his weakness. You absolutely can get good | at wine, but not from casually drinking a glass every so often. | Like all disciplines it takes practice. | fleddr wrote: | I simply consider it a type of harmless overconsumption, an | expensive status-driven hobby not backed by rationalism. | | It comes in many shapes and forms. Coffee snobs. People that buy | a Rolex. Or have a 100K audio setup to match their supernatural | hearing. | | It doesn't have to make objective sense, as long as it makes | sense in your head. | e10jc wrote: | I've had a lot of red wine in my life; like, probably too much. | The only bottle with a memorable taste came from a wine tour in | Napa Valley where they said half the field was destroyed in a | fire, so they were getting rid of the rest for cheap. The wine | was super smoky... and absolutely delicious. I wonder why that | never became a thing. | doubled112 wrote: | Probably difficult and expensive to consistently burn the field | down. | hoherd wrote: | That's what we have PG&E for: Peaty Grapes and Ethanol. | preinheimer wrote: | Maybe happening more often with the wildfires these days | milderworkacc wrote: | We had a lot of smoke tainted "experimental" wines out from | Australian vineyards as 2019 and 2020 releases - some were | really interesting, others simply dreadful (with winemakers | just glad you were happy to take a punt and get rid of it for | them). | | Not sure repeating the bushfires that created those releases is | a long term strategy though... | jahsome wrote: | You may find you like peaty single malt scotches. | bergenty wrote: | I once asked for a very smoky whisky and was bought out | something completely clear. | LastTrain wrote: | I've had some incredible wines, but it is beyond fucked up that | you can lay down $40 for a bottle of trash, and that is just OK. | In what other industry is the quality so inconsistent? | argc wrote: | I loved this article. My take away would be - there are | differences between wines, some people are good at telling them | apart, but people make mistakes and can be tricked, so take | everything you hear about wine with a grain of salt. | bell-cot wrote: | Is there _anything_ which involves both... | | (1) lots of subtle and subjective judgement calls | | (2) humans yearning to show off their wealth / sophistication / | status | | ...which is NOT fake or widely-faked? | JasonFruit wrote: | I can _totally_ tell the difference in sound between a long- | pattern Strad and a golden-period one, so you just back off, | champ. | TremendousJudge wrote: | Text editor choice. Those are definitely, completely, for sure | real. | bombcar wrote: | There are zero subjective calls there, however. My choices | are objectively correct and laid down by God Himself, all | others are ontologically evil. | TheDong wrote: | You can "no true scottsman" your way to make that true or | false, depending. | | I might say "Cars and yachts are not so widely faked, but are | both status symbols", but then you might say "ah, but those are | less subjective. A yacht objectively does not sink, and a car | objectively needs less maintenance or goes faster or has better | ride quality" | | I might say "having a subjectively defined set of books on your | bookshelf is a sign of sophistication and status, and is not | widely faked", but you might say "ah, but the books are | objective, having 1984 and K&R C are objectively a sign of | programmer status" | | I might say "owning a 'nice house' in a big city is a status | symbol, 'nice' is very subjective, but it's not widely faked", | to which you will point out reality is fake and I cannot even | prove houses are real in the first place. | tptacek wrote: | I don't know about judging the binary, but there are more- and | less- faked luxury good appreciations. Whiskey is less faked | than wine is (but, like most things, the distinctions blur as | you go up in price; that makes, like, a kind of basic economic | sense, right?) | fumeux_fume wrote: | A nice thoughtful piece on tasting wine. Under scrutiny, | sensational conclusions typically fall apart and sometimes they | really tell you more about the "experts" than about wine. | Fortunately for me, I can enjoy wine at many different price- | points. However, I usually find the bottles which move me the | most are priced at $50+. | Havoc wrote: | It's unfortunate that the price section of the article isn't a | bit more nuanced. There is definitely a big difference - it just | has diminishing returns effect and the drop off price point is | likely lower than most experts are willing to admit | tamaharbor wrote: | All I know about wine is that it comes in a box. | rosnd wrote: | A large plastic jug, actually. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | Not true. Sometimes it's in a bottle with a screw cap. | sbf501 wrote: | TL;DR -- "Wine is not fake. Wine experts aren't fake either, but | they believe some strange things, are far from infallible, and | need challenges and blinded trials to be kept honest. How far | beyond wine you want to apply this is left as an exercise for the | reader." | | It is a showoff sport. Insane wine prices are there for rich | people who have too much money to spend, or people who are in | desperate need of validation. We all know someone in a McMansion | with premium beige textured walls and a few Lexus who has a "wine | cellar" that they can't stop talking about. The market is mostly | for them. | | I say "mostly" because like TFA says, some people really can tell | the difference, but I feel bad that they have to pay so much more | due to the idiot tax. | alistairSH wrote: | Yeah, there's definitely some learned skill in IDing wines by | region/variety. | | My "system" for picking wines has two approaches: - Buy Trader | Joe's Reserve in a variety I enjoy - Visit local wine shop, | tell them my budget and what I'm eating for dinner, and buy | whatever they suggest | | Both approaches yield pretty good results for not much money. | | I'll leave "risking" the $5 bottles from Safeway to somebody | else. The $10-$30 bottles I get are consistently good enough, | and often better than good enough. | mfrisbie wrote: | I took the introductory sommelier exam as a hobbyist, but I was | in a room with ~200 people in the industry. We collectively blind | tasted about a dozen wines, and I watched as people around me | mostly guessed correctly with astonishing accuracy. | | There may be some nonsense in wine tasting, but it is definitely | possible to develop a body of knowledge and experience that | allows one to identify wines based on only your senses. It's | important to note that the CMS only includes traditionally | produced wines in the blind tasting - no curveballs (pinot grigio | grown in Alaska or whatever). | bombcar wrote: | Some people say you can't tell the difference between Pepsi, | Coke, and the diet versions of both, but I certainly can. | | I've no doubt a sommelier can tell differences between wines. | | What I do suspect is that you can enjoy moderately priced wines | just as well as many more expensive ones. | mfrisbie wrote: | I suspect there's a chicken and egg effect with pricing and | blind tasting. Someone who can identify wines blind surely | knows how much each region/producer/style costs, and based on | that would assign a guessed price. Example: Paulliac is | expensive, this tastes like a Paulliac, therefore wines that | taste this must also be expensive. | lisper wrote: | As someone who ran a wine-tasting group for several years I can | tell you this: there are definitely discernible differences | between wines. What there is not, however, is any kind of | absolute standard for what constitutes a "good" wine. Different | people like different things. There are two things that makes | wines expensive, and neither of them necessarily correlates with | whether a particular wine will taste good _to you_ : | | 1. Old wines cost more because you have to pay for the storage. | | 2. Low-production wines that have an affluent following cost more | because supply and demand. | | And that's it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you if you | if you prefer a Gallo Rhine Wine in a box to a Romanee Conti. | | That said, there is definitely a skill and an art to being a | Sommelier, and that is the ability to take someone's description | of what they like and match it to what's on their wine list. | There is no such thing as a "good wine" independent of any | particular person's tastes (except if you have a wine that has, | say, turned to vinegar) but there is definitely such a thing as a | good sommelier. | [deleted] | w_for_wumbo wrote: | I feel like the bigger argument to make here, is that taste | itself is fake. It's an illusion created by our brain, by taking | in all of the various factors and determining whether we should | be rewarded by it or not. | | We see countless time color has effect on taste, scent has an | effect on taste, mood has an effect on taste, expectations have | an effect on taste. | | Taste therefore isn't this static thing that we seem to think of | it as. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-21 23:00 UTC)