I always thought of wine as less of a scale of good vs bad, and more about the individuality of the experience, kind of the way one baseball card is more expens

I always thought of wine as less of a scale of good vs bad, and more about the individuality of the experience, kind of the way one baseball card is more expensive than another, which is not about quality -- though I also think that wine culture doesn't necessarily think of it that way. But you don't spend $100 on a bottle of wine because it's better than a $10. You spend $100 on a bottle of wine to be able to appreciate the unique experience of what wine on a 150 year old Vineyard in a specific part of France made by a specific person tastes like, or for a newer bottle of wine, to taste some celebrity vineyard. More like appreciating art than a strict ranking. That being said I also wonder if enjoying wine is really about maximizing the placebo effect, which may be why wine connoisseur so object to the economists view of wine, because it can spoil the illusion. I.E. part of the enjoyment of the wine is the story you tell yourself. Blindfolding removes an essential part of the enjoyment of the wine. Seeing the bottle, seeing the color of the wine, looking at the legs flow down the glass. I'm not sure if these two kinds of people - i.e. the objectivist who would rather know objectively if there's differences in the quality of wine, and the subjectivist - the person who wants to be taken up by the illusion of the wine can ever really get eachother. But often I think the subjectivist is happier (in the vein of the 'depressive realist' https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201206/depressive-realism https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201206...) and as someone who is more of the objectivist or realist I wonder if there are ways to leverage the other.