3 ms·

A $300 meal can be 10x better than a $30 meal. Most $30 meals are fine, but a $300 meal may be the best meal you have ever had.

by bobf 14y ago

dredmorbius 14y ago
The best meals I've ever had were generally cooked by me or someone I know personally, and were shared with good friends or family. An outdoor BBQ 20 years ago. Christmas dinners. Camp meals backpacking. Mom's home cooking after workouts as a kid. Picnics out of doors. I can think of maybe two or three restaurant meals that were memorable. The best of these a long long time ago with a girl I was very fond of, in a small rustic tavern. Expensive? No. But exquisite at the time.
- baseh 14y ago
  I agree eating with people you love makes all the difference
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    This includes, occasionally, eating alone, if you love the right people.
lazerwalker 14y ago
The key word there is can. A $300 meal may be the best meal you've ever had, but spending $300 on a meal isn't a guarantee that it will be. Conversely, it's also possible that $30 meal could be the best meal you've ever had. Less likely, sure, but possible. It reminds me of advice I've been given from friends who are really into wine: the difference between a $10 bottle of wine, a $50 bottle of wine, and a $100 bottle of wine isn't that the more expensive ones are better, it's that they're more likely to be good.
- KC8ZKF 14y ago
  There is at least some evidence that an expensive bottle of wine tastes better because it's expensive. When the cost of the wine is unknown to the taster, the differences disappear.[1] And, when a wine is presented to the taster as expensive it is perceived as better than cheaper wines even when it is the same wine.[2] [1] http://www.wine-economics.org/journal/content/Volume3/number1/Full%20Texts/01_wine%20economics_Robin%20Goldstein_vol%203_1.pdf http://www.wine-economics.org/journal/content/Volume3/number... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/15/expensive-wine-tastes-better/ http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/15/expensive-wine-tas...
  - spenczar5 14y ago
    Your first article, at least, comes with a strong caveat: "We ﬁnd that, unless they are experts, individuals who are unaware of the price enjoy more expensive wines slightly less." (emphasis added)
    - KC8ZKF 14y ago
      If you and I were to get together and agree on a certain aesthetic, and then we were to declare people who agreed with our aesthetic "experts", and then we were to test random people against our set of experts, our experts would agree with our aesthetic more often than the others. That says nothing about peoples enjoyment. If people, experts or not, enjoy expensive wine more than inexpensive wine, they still enjoy it more even if their reasoning is flawed.
      - spenczar5 14y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You seemed to originally be claiming that there isn't an appreciable aesthetic difference between cheap wine and expensive wine, and that all wine is basically the same when you don't think about price ("When the cost of the wine is unknown to the taster, the differences disappear.") But the article you provided seems to say that there is a difference between cheap and expensive wine - it's just that most people are not good enough to detect it. I think this is important because it invalidates the claim that "all wine is indistinguishable." There's a difference, it's just hard to detect, and the pros are better at it. To return to the original point of the thread, though, wine actually is a pretty interesting example that complicates the original poster's point. The more you wine you drink, the more important it is to pay extra. It's not that the expensive stuff isn't better, it's just that you have to care a whole lot to appreciate the difference, so most people actually will be fine just getting relatively cheap wine.

A $300 meal can be 10x better than a $30 meal. Most $30 meals are fine, but a $300 meal may be the best meal you have ever had.

by bobf 14y ago

A $300 meal can be 10x better than a $30 meal. Most $30 meals are fine, but a $300 meal may be the best meal you have ever had.

dredmorbius 14y ago

The best meals I've ever had were generally cooked by me or someone I know personally, and were shared with good friends or family. An outdoor BBQ 20 years ago. Christmas dinners. Camp meals backpacking. Mom's home cooking after workouts as a kid. Picnics out of doors. I can think of maybe two or three restaurant meals that were memorable. The best of these a long long time ago with a girl I was very fond of, in a small rustic tavern. Expensive? No. But exquisite at the time.

baseh 14y ago
I agree eating with people you love makes all the difference
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  This includes, occasionally, eating alone, if you love the right people.

lazerwalker 14y ago

The key word there is can. A $300 meal may be the best meal you've ever had, but spending $300 on a meal isn't a guarantee that it will be. Conversely, it's also possible that $30 meal could be the best meal you've ever had. Less likely, sure, but possible. It reminds me of advice I've been given from friends who are really into wine: the difference between a $10 bottle of wine, a $50 bottle of wine, and a $100 bottle of wine isn't that the more expensive ones are better, it's that they're more likely to be good.

KC8ZKF 14y ago
There is at least some evidence that an expensive bottle of wine tastes better because it's expensive. When the cost of the wine is unknown to the taster, the differences disappear.[1] And, when a wine is presented to the taster as expensive it is perceived as better than cheaper wines even when it is the same wine.[2] [1] http://www.wine-economics.org/journal/content/Volume3/number1/Full%20Texts/01_wine%20economics_Robin%20Goldstein_vol%203_1.pdf http://www.wine-economics.org/journal/content/Volume3/number... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/15/expensive-wine-tastes-better/ http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/15/expensive-wine-tas...
- spenczar5 14y ago
  Your first article, at least, comes with a strong caveat: "We ﬁnd that, unless they are experts, individuals who are unaware of the price enjoy more expensive wines slightly less." (emphasis added)
  - KC8ZKF 14y ago
    If you and I were to get together and agree on a certain aesthetic, and then we were to declare people who agreed with our aesthetic "experts", and then we were to test random people against our set of experts, our experts would agree with our aesthetic more often than the others. That says nothing about peoples enjoyment. If people, experts or not, enjoy expensive wine more than inexpensive wine, they still enjoy it more even if their reasoning is flawed.
    - spenczar5 14y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You seemed to originally be claiming that there isn't an appreciable aesthetic difference between cheap wine and expensive wine, and that all wine is basically the same when you don't think about price ("When the cost of the wine is unknown to the taster, the differences disappear.") But the article you provided seems to say that there is a difference between cheap and expensive wine - it's just that most people are not good enough to detect it. I think this is important because it invalidates the claim that "all wine is indistinguishable." There's a difference, it's just hard to detect, and the pros are better at it. To return to the original point of the thread, though, wine actually is a pretty interesting example that complicates the original poster's point. The more you wine you drink, the more important it is to pay extra. It's not that the expensive stuff isn't better, it's just that you have to care a whole lot to appreciate the difference, so most people actually will be fine just getting relatively cheap wine.