when you drink wine, what are you really tasting?

How do you explain people that knowingly prefer a $40 Cali Pinot vs. a $300 Burgundy?

It's not as simple as some folks would have you believe.

"If we're told a bottle of wine has hints of "cat pee" or "hot fig flavors," then by God we're going to taste hot figgy cat pee. When we shell out on a bottle of wine, in other words, the bullshit is what we're buying."

Most people don't know much about wine. Especially people in my age bracket. They drink it because it's "red" or "white."

If you read things, 20 "volunteers" were the sample for the much heralded "study." While I do think many things influence wine tasting, these people obviously used price as the determining factor. No doubt, they were not people with a large exposure to wine.

The other two studies, by the same guy FWIW, are fatally flawed too.


Um, the exact same bottle used over the course of a year? We don't think open bottles kept like that change? In fact, depending on varietal, closed bottles change drastically in a year. There is also bottle variation, how a bottle has been treated, and a billion other things.

Lastly, the Gallo mess (which I posted about some time ago btw). Do we really think people buying cheap Gallo have much of a wine palate?

I think the ability to taste certain things are greatly over stated and/or dependent on non-wine variables. I can tell you though that experience is a great determinant. We have done blind tastings and I can pretty reliably tell a Cali PN from an Oregon one. Wines like Peay are harder, as they are more like an Oregon than a fruit bomb Central Coast or RRV.

I'm not 100% sure in my read either. No matter how you slice it though, I don't think a 4 point spread is hard to understand, over time. Just so many variables, I'm surprised it's not more. Heck, even when I get four bottles of the same wine, age it myself, my tasting experience each time is a little different. What food I had, the current age of the wine, what sort of day I had, etc.

Like I said, I think some people are bullshit artists but to completely dismiss the ability to differentiate wine on non-price factors is simply (and patently) incorrect.

it's unfortunate but true that price will absolutely make a big difference for the average American consumer. The average American consumer is woefully uneducated on wine. You would be surprised (or deeply saddened) to learn just how many people equate burgundy to mean any wine that is red (especially good for cooking) and chablis and a light white wine from California. Except for Chianti, which is a darker red wine. And having a formal statistical education, I can say that a sample size of 20 is enough for a fun personal experiment ... but nothing that should be seen beyond that. One person should not dictate 5% of the total responses. Furthermore, the article says "While oenophiles may sincerely believe that they can suss out the difference between a $95 bottle and a $19 one, science indicates otherwise" and then the science they provide is 20 "volunteers" with no explanation of their wine experience (of course John Doe is going to assume the $90 bottle is a better wine). Realizing this, the "scientist" seek out "semi-pro" from the Stanford wine club and says the results were similar ... but didn't provide any numbers to support this or discuss the sample size. While I'm not sure I'd call him a pro, watch some Gary Vaynerchuk. He will gladly rip apart the expensive bottles in favor of the cheaper ones where it is deemed necessary.

to the first point: there have been studies like that (I'd have to seek them out), but I don't recall the results. Still, the point of the original study was to show that to any marginally educated consumer, they will assume the more expensive the wine, the better they'll like it.

point two: stores have their "margin" wines and their regular wines. They're not making much money on Kendall Jackson or Yellow Tail ... it's the others that actually help stores out. They don't make much money on liquor either.

to the third: yes, this is the main problem I have with how the studies are run then published

I am a beer guy mostly, not a wine person (as I am 20 years old and do not have the requisite funds to embark upon wine connoisseurship.) However, I am fairly critical and due to my mother's insistence on learning how to differentiate different tastes in things, I'd like to think I have a somewhat well developed palate for things. Personally in a wine I like it to be thick and rich, fruity, smooth, with peppery and spicy notes. An abundance of flavour is my main judge on a wine's character, with smoothness as a close second. Any good wine should be smooth, but most wines I've been told are "good" by people are smooth and flavourless. People seem to be super into alcoholic beverages that taste like nothing so that they may swill with ease, I like excessive drinking as much as the next person, but I certainly don't base QUALITY on such a factor! My favourite type of wine, out of those that I have tried, is Malbec, followed closely by Cabernet Sauvignon. All the wine I've tried has been on the recommendation of family members who are more experienced in wine than myself, I do intend on learning about wine someday. As I have a very deep love and respect for matters of drink. So, an uneducated one's view on good wine :P Also very aware that the biggest factor determining quality, not just in wine but in everything, is the amount of money it costs. It's sad that people equate cost with quality, as so much more than quality goes into the cost of an item.

I taste grape drank.

The big margins come from the case discounts. Buy 5 cases the bottle price comes down to $24, but when you buy 10 cases it comes down to $16. Delicious margin.

Not only that, but most stores make more money on KJ and Yellowtail due to sheer volume, even if the margin on each bottle is small.