4 ms·

Numerous double-blind studied have shown experts can't tell the difference between common table wine and expensive bottles.[0][1] The whole thing is absurd. [0

by seibelj 10y ago

Numerous double-blind studied have shown experts can't tell the difference between common table wine and expensive bottles.[0][1] The whole thing is absurd. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine) [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-wine-economics/article/div-classtitlean-examination-of-judge-reliability-at-a-major-us-wine-competitiona-hreffn01-ref-typefnspan-classsupspanadiv/15EF999FBAC63C5FB6DCF1C2F4BB6655 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-wine-econ...

antognini 10y ago
I don't think those links support your claim. The Judgment of Paris was between high-end California and Bordeaux wines. The received wisdom of the time was that California Bordeaux-style wines (or, more generally, anything from the New World) were inferior to true Bordeaux wines. The Judgment of Paris showed that wasn't true. But they certainly didn't use California table wine. And the study you link to just seems to show that judges don't rank wines in competition very consistently. I don't think that table wines are often entered into these sorts of competitions. I'm fairly confident that someone with a good palette could distinguish between a high-end Bordeaux and Two-Buck Chuck.
- seibelj 10y ago
  Do you have any science to prove your hunch? I've been following this for a while and nothing I've ever read showed that judges can distinguish two buck chuck from high end wine.
  - 09bjb 10y ago
    Uneducated drinkers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Once you've tried enough wines, the difference is obvious and nobody debates it anymore. If you drink beer, it's not much different than mistaking Coors Light for your favorite microbrewed Stout.
    - fenwick67 10y ago
      I'm neither a big wine or beer drinker, but I must say it's way easier to tell a microbrew from a coors light than it is to discern a $10 cabernet from a $1000 cabernet.
      - antognini 10y ago
        That is certainly true. One of my professors in grad school was really into wine and would periodically host a wine class for the grad students. According to him there is not much difference between a $1000 bottle of wine and a good bottle of ~$30 wine. The main difference is in consistency. A $30 wine could be okay, excellent, or bad. But if you buy a $1000 bottle of wine, you know that it will be excellent.
        jpatokal 10y ago
        ...unless it's been kept poorly, in which case it will be vinegar. I used to live in Singapore, which is full of rich people who collect wine and wine shops that cater to them, completely with regulated-humidity cellars etc. Problem is, Singapore is in the tropics, meaning wine often sits around baking in containers for weeks or months on its way to the shop...
      - 09bjb 10y ago
        Yep. Although given the current trends, we'll soon be able to say the same thing about a $3 Belgian-style and a $30 Belgian-style.
        DonaldFisk 10y ago
        There are dozens of styles of Belgian ale, and differences between them are obvious. There isn't much difference in price. It ranges from https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/leffe-brune https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/leffe-brune (£1.22/33cl) to https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/westvleteren-12 https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/westvleteren-12 (£10.76/33cl), the reason for the high cost of Westvlereten being low volume production. https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/st-bernardus-abt-12 https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/st-bernardus-abt-12 is very similar and sells for only £1.84/33cl.
  - monochromatic 10y ago
    I'd be interested to see any study you have that shows judges confusing two buck chuck with high-end stuff. I'm guessing any such judges are just random people off the street... which doesn't say much about whether or not someone with experience can tell the difference, and thus doesn't say much about whether there is a difference.
    - DonaldFisk 10y ago
      Rather than being confused with them, 2 buck chuck beat expensive wines at the 2007 California State Fair Commercial Wine Competition: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578
      - monochromatic 10y ago
        Wow.
- 09bjb 10y ago
  Lol, can confirm. I know this won't appeal to our lovable cadre of HN contrarians, but there is a major difference between most high-end bottles and anything you can get for $8 and under. That's not to say that those $40-and-up bottles are always worth the price...or that you'll even like it as much as everyone else paying that price! But the whole thing is not a complete farce. Scarcity, collectibility, buying as investments, and mostly the novelty factor of something you've never tried are what drive prices on individual bottles into the ludicrous range.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > Scarcity, collectibility, buying as investments, and mostly the novelty factor of something you've never tried None of those are "what it tastes like".
    - lukas099 10y ago
      Yes they are. Scarcity - it is hard to find something that tastes like it. Novelty - it tastes like something you've never tasted before.
    - barrkel 10y ago
      The most expensive drink I've bought by volume was a '72 to '74 aged sake, and that was most certainly for it scarcity: and because nothing else tastes like it.
    - geofft 10y ago
      That quote was about the difference between a $40 bottle and a $ludicrous bottle. Across the $8 - $40 range, there's definitely a meaningful difference in what it tastes like.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    There's a lot of absurdity. I've also (rarely) done premium tastings in Napa and Sonoma and really appreciated the experience. I've then also left thinking I get a lot more total enjoyment out of the $80 bottle of whiskey than the $80 bottle of wine. (Both of which I realize don't really qualify as high-end.)

by seibelj 10y ago

antognini 10y ago

I don't think those links support your claim. The Judgment of Paris was between high-end California and Bordeaux wines. The received wisdom of the time was that California Bordeaux-style wines (or, more generally, anything from the New World) were inferior to true Bordeaux wines. The Judgment of Paris showed that wasn't true. But they certainly didn't use California table wine. And the study you link to just seems to show that judges don't rank wines in competition very consistently. I don't think that table wines are often entered into these sorts of competitions. I'm fairly confident that someone with a good palette could distinguish between a high-end Bordeaux and Two-Buck Chuck.

seibelj 10y ago
Do you have any science to prove your hunch? I've been following this for a while and nothing I've ever read showed that judges can distinguish two buck chuck from high end wine.
- 09bjb 10y ago
  Uneducated drinkers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Once you've tried enough wines, the difference is obvious and nobody debates it anymore. If you drink beer, it's not much different than mistaking Coors Light for your favorite microbrewed Stout.
  - fenwick67 10y ago
    I'm neither a big wine or beer drinker, but I must say it's way easier to tell a microbrew from a coors light than it is to discern a $10 cabernet from a $1000 cabernet.
    - antognini 10y ago
      That is certainly true. One of my professors in grad school was really into wine and would periodically host a wine class for the grad students. According to him there is not much difference between a $1000 bottle of wine and a good bottle of ~$30 wine. The main difference is in consistency. A $30 wine could be okay, excellent, or bad. But if you buy a $1000 bottle of wine, you know that it will be excellent.
      - jpatokal 10y ago
        ...unless it's been kept poorly, in which case it will be vinegar. I used to live in Singapore, which is full of rich people who collect wine and wine shops that cater to them, completely with regulated-humidity cellars etc. Problem is, Singapore is in the tropics, meaning wine often sits around baking in containers for weeks or months on its way to the shop...
    - 09bjb 10y ago
      Yep. Although given the current trends, we'll soon be able to say the same thing about a $3 Belgian-style and a $30 Belgian-style.
      - DonaldFisk 10y ago
        There are dozens of styles of Belgian ale, and differences between them are obvious. There isn't much difference in price. It ranges from https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/leffe-brune https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/leffe-brune (£1.22/33cl) to https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/westvleteren-12 https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/westvleteren-12 (£10.76/33cl), the reason for the high cost of Westvlereten being low volume production. https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/st-bernardus-abt-12 https://www.uvinum.co.uk/beer/st-bernardus-abt-12 is very similar and sells for only £1.84/33cl.
- monochromatic 10y ago
  I'd be interested to see any study you have that shows judges confusing two buck chuck with high-end stuff. I'm guessing any such judges are just random people off the street... which doesn't say much about whether or not someone with experience can tell the difference, and thus doesn't say much about whether there is a difference.
  - DonaldFisk 10y ago
    Rather than being confused with them, 2 buck chuck beat expensive wines at the 2007 California State Fair Commercial Wine Competition: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578
    - monochromatic 10y ago
      Wow.
09bjb 10y ago
Lol, can confirm. I know this won't appeal to our lovable cadre of HN contrarians, but there is a major difference between most high-end bottles and anything you can get for $8 and under. That's not to say that those $40-and-up bottles are always worth the price...or that you'll even like it as much as everyone else paying that price! But the whole thing is not a complete farce. Scarcity, collectibility, buying as investments, and mostly the novelty factor of something you've never tried are what drive prices on individual bottles into the ludicrous range.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Scarcity, collectibility, buying as investments, and mostly the novelty factor of something you've never tried None of those are "what it tastes like".
  - lukas099 10y ago
    Yes they are. Scarcity - it is hard to find something that tastes like it. Novelty - it tastes like something you've never tasted before.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    The most expensive drink I've bought by volume was a '72 to '74 aged sake, and that was most certainly for it scarcity: and because nothing else tastes like it.
  - geofft 10y ago
    That quote was about the difference between a $40 bottle and a $ludicrous bottle. Across the $8 - $40 range, there's definitely a meaningful difference in what it tastes like.
- ghaff 10y ago
  There's a lot of absurdity. I've also (rarely) done premium tastings in Napa and Sonoma and really appreciated the experience. I've then also left thinking I get a lot more total enjoyment out of the $80 bottle of whiskey than the $80 bottle of wine. (Both of which I realize don't really qualify as high-end.)