5 ms·

one of my favourite wines is cosino macul's don matias - a reserve cab that costs about $5000 pesos here (chile). they have a vineyard not far from us, that we

one of my favourite wines is cosino macul's don matias - a reserve cab that costs about $5000 pesos here (chile). they have a vineyard not far from us, that we take visitors to, so i feel it's kind of my "local". and it's an old, established family firm (although what that says in chile isn't necessarily so great). anyway, they also have don luis, which is similar (and, confusingly, looks very similar), but not aged in oak, and so cheaper (say $3500). one day i was out shopping at the supermarket and saw don luis on offer. so i bought a bottle and, when i got home, cracked it open. it tasted pretty awesome. so awesome, in fact, that i decided to go buy some more. but before i went out the door i took a second look at the bottle - somehow i had picked up a bottle of don matias (the more expensive reserve). oops. no surprise it tasted so good. and that, for me, has always been the argument against the idea that you can't taste different wines [edit: more correctly, can't taste the difference between wines and, in this case at least, tell which is more expensive]. despite my expectations, thinking i was drinking a bottle of varietal, i recognised the better quality (or, at least, different taste) of the reserve. now i'm no expert, and i can't recognise all wines, or the difference between many reserves and "super-reserves". but the difference between a plain and an oaked red (which, legally, is the difference between varietals and reserves in chile) is clear.

dfc 14y ago
How is that an argument against the idea that you can't taste different wines? It seems to me that in order to make the case you should have recognized that it was Don Matias without looking at the label. As far as I'm concerned you drank a bottle of cheaper wine and thought to yourself, "wow. This was tasty, much tastier than I expected. Instead of wasting money on the fancy label I should buy this from now on."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Evbn 14y ago
  But he didn't. He drank the fancier wine.
  - dfc 14y ago
    I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "he didnt." I am assuming you are referring to the latter half of my comment. Yes he drank the fancier wine. However when drinking it he thought he was drinking the "less fancier" wine.
TylerE 14y ago
In case anyone is curious... Those prices converted to USD are $10.54 and $7.41, respectively.
vidarh 14y ago
I don't think anyone has been claiming you can't notice the difference between wines, but that there is not consistent difference in taste based on price. Furthermore, peoples taste is manipulated by expectation. That does not mean people are confused all the time. There are genuine differences. It is just that often the expectations can override them. Note that you yourself, while you enjoyed the wine you thought was the cheaper variation, according to your own comment did not recognise the more expensive wine: You believed it was the cheaper wine until you saw the bottle, despite claiming at the end that the difference between these types "is clear". If telling them apart is so easy, despite expectations, you should have noticed at the first sip of the bottle that it could not have been the varietal.
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  maybe i didn't explain very well. i tasted the varietal and thought it was amazing value for money - that it tasted like a reserve. when i looked again at the bottle "it all made sense" - it tasted like a reserve because it was a reserve. if you are claiming that is significantly different from me thinking "oh, i'm an idiot, i must have bought the wrong bottle and this is the reserve" on tasting it then i don't know what to say. you seem to be splitting hairs - in either case what is important is that taste was sufficient to detect a more expensive wine. a stronger argument, it seems to me, against what i am saying is that it is a single case. to that i can only add that i've not had the same experience going the other way. i have never tasted a reserve and thought "ugh, i have been screwed". reserves taste like reserves - the oak is obvious. and that means that there is a clear change in taste when the price increases from varietal to reserve. again: i am not claiming you can taste all price differences. but this one is clear and legally enforced for chilean wines.

dfc 14y ago

How is that an argument against the idea that you can't taste different wines? It seems to me that in order to make the case you should have recognized that it was Don Matias without looking at the label. As far as I'm concerned you drank a bottle of cheaper wine and thought to yourself, "wow. This was tasty, much tastier than I expected. Instead of wasting money on the fancy label I should buy this from now on."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Evbn 14y ago
But he didn't. He drank the fancier wine.
- dfc 14y ago
  I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "he didnt." I am assuming you are referring to the latter half of my comment. Yes he drank the fancier wine. However when drinking it he thought he was drinking the "less fancier" wine.

TylerE 14y ago

In case anyone is curious... Those prices converted to USD are $10.54 and $7.41, respectively.

vidarh 14y ago

I don't think anyone has been claiming you can't notice the difference between wines, but that there is not consistent difference in taste based on price. Furthermore, peoples taste is manipulated by expectation. That does not mean people are confused all the time. There are genuine differences. It is just that often the expectations can override them. Note that you yourself, while you enjoyed the wine you thought was the cheaper variation, according to your own comment did not recognise the more expensive wine: You believed it was the cheaper wine until you saw the bottle, despite claiming at the end that the difference between these types "is clear". If telling them apart is so easy, despite expectations, you should have noticed at the first sip of the bottle that it could not have been the varietal.

andrewcooke 14y ago
maybe i didn't explain very well. i tasted the varietal and thought it was amazing value for money - that it tasted like a reserve. when i looked again at the bottle "it all made sense" - it tasted like a reserve because it was a reserve. if you are claiming that is significantly different from me thinking "oh, i'm an idiot, i must have bought the wrong bottle and this is the reserve" on tasting it then i don't know what to say. you seem to be splitting hairs - in either case what is important is that taste was sufficient to detect a more expensive wine. a stronger argument, it seems to me, against what i am saying is that it is a single case. to that i can only add that i've not had the same experience going the other way. i have never tasted a reserve and thought "ugh, i have been screwed". reserves taste like reserves - the oak is obvious. and that means that there is a clear change in taste when the price increases from varietal to reserve. again: i am not claiming you can taste all price differences. but this one is clear and legally enforced for chilean wines.