4 ms·
Art is usually unique; I'm not sure the markets are comparable (wines have a limited run, but not so limited that two true fans will push the price into the mil
by JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Art is usually unique; I'm not sure the markets are comparable (wines have a limited run, but not so limited that two true fans will push the price into the millions.)
This study shows that some/many wines cost more, yet don't taste better. In other words, a random expensive wine is likely not great from a price-quality, or even just quality, perspective. This is relevant to the unsophisticated buyer, i.e. most of their readers.
I think you're arguing that, essentially, a well-chosen expensive wine is noticeably better than a similarly well-chosen not-so-expensive wine. I'm inclined to believe you, but that is much harder for the average consumer to act on.
- aneth 16y agoYes, that's basically my point. I also think, on average, a higher price wine will be better than a lower price wine. A lot of these arguments could be made for any product or service. If you pay more for your house, does it mean that you will live happier? No. You may be much happier in central Montana than New York. If you pay more for your clothes, do they look better? If you pay more for your music, do you enjoy it more? The whole debate is non-sense. Any consumer who thought they were necessarily getting better wine simply because they paid more probably is not literate enough to have understood this article.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago> I also think, on average, a higher price wine will be better than a lower price wine. You'd expect that, yes, but this article and similar studies strongly suggest that this is not actually true (at the high end, at least). That's the entire point.