4 ms·

Wine tasting is bullshit

35 points by sxp 13y ago

jleyank 13y ago
I can't answer for taste, as I don't drink wine. My wife does, and it's my job to remember what she likes. The nose, however, can usually type a grape or at least distinguish things like Cabernet with soft reds like Pinot Noir. Does that mean they taste better or worse? No idea, but the combination of color (intensity) and smell lets me guess the grape pretty well. Given the repeated success of things like $2 buck Chuck, it seems that typical people would do well with $4-14 bottles of table red or table white for most applications. There's a lot of options in these price ranges. My wife has obvious preferences for wine selection based on meals. So I have to assume there's taste differences involved.
femto 13y ago
Another data point: I once threw a party, to which people had to bring a wine, priced between $10 and $15. On arrival, each wine was placed in a numbered container, so the identity of each wine was unknown, and attendees were given a score sheet. My contribution was a $5/bottle and $30/bottle wildcard. The $5 wildcard came out top. I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle. The bottom wine was a truly dreadful, dirt cheap cask wine that someone had brought and decanted into a bottle for a joke. At the end of the night, the scores and identities were revealed. Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it. The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random.
- EvanKelly 13y ago
  The holding the nose experiment isn't surprising at all. It's a common children's technique for eating 'gross' healthy things and not tasting them. This led to my 4th grade science fair project which was blind taste testing of Jelly Bellies (Coffee, Strawberry, Licorice, and Buttery Popcorn). I can't remember the results perfectly, but in general, people were pretty worthless at telling them apart without their nose.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  > The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random Not surprising, given that the sense of smell is a significant part of our experience of taste.
- derefr 13y ago
  > saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it This actually seems perfectly valid to me. One of the universal qualities of "expensive-tasting" things is that their tastes are usually complex--it takes a while to work through exactly what makes them good. They're meant to also be good in the "food" sense, yes, but more than anything, they're supposed to be art--of the kind you would stand in a gallery analyzing, trying to figure out how the time and place of its creation influenced its style, etc. With no training, you'll usually ignore flavor entirely, and just go for the wine that has the most sugar and a decent amount of alcohol. It might not actually be the one you most prefer in the moment (though it certainly could be)--but when you're asked for a rating, it's the one you can justify, and our post-hoc justifications for preferences frequently overwrite our (weaker) memories of experiential preferences.
  - ryandvm 13y ago
    What a load of crap. If you need proper training to tell if something is "good" then you're not detecting goodness at all. All you're doing is engaging in pattern matching with a bunch of other pretentious assholes.
- prawn 13y ago
  "The $5 wildcard came out top." Hope everyone who liked it stocked up. But is this a data point against "wine tasting" (supporting that wine tasting is bullshit) or just saying that price isn't necessarily an indicator of preference? I like some cheap and cheerful restaurants more than celebrity chef restaurants in big brand hotel lobbies. "I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle." You don't mention what sort of people were at the party, but perhaps they just like an even blend? "Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it." I think a lot of that comes down to human nature and you would find equivalent comments and tests with all sorts of product categories including other beverages, quality of fabric/fashion, speaker systems, etc.
runT1ME 13y ago
Less bullshit than cancer research though, apparently?
- kbenson 13y ago
  Indeed. Nice call. For posterity sake, I'll drop a hint[1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5679685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5679685
boyter 13y ago
It's not total bullshit. For the record I am not a wine buff (more interested in beer personally) but it doesn't take long for the average drinker to learn to recognize the difference in taste between grape varieties in new world wines and regions in old. It also doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine. That said do I think you can score a wine though? No. You can certainly pick between a selection of wines and rank them in order of what you prefer. You can certainly have a preference for style/type food combo icewine and botrytis for dessert or Riesling with seafood. This is the benefit in wine tasting in my opinion. Not impressing your friends with a 98 score wine but matching food appropriately.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  > It also doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine. Have you done the sort of blindfold/label-free bottle tests described? If not, you're potentially falling for exactly the sort of thing the article is about.
  - boyter 13y ago
    Yes I have. So long as I am not holding my nose I can still pick them out. That might be due to the wines in Australia having very distinctive flavour's though.
- Steko 13y ago
  "doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine." If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that the whole thing is bullshit?
  - mike_herrera 13y ago
    Not in the slightest. As a counter-example, challenging food and music comes to mind.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
camperman 13y ago
Strange article. I've spent a lot of time in one of the finest winelands in the world (Stellenbosch) and I used to be a supertaster (with blindfolded tests to prove it to sceptical friends) and I've blended some of my own. It's definitely all very personal, subjective and prone to loads of outside influences. Are the limitations of language partially at fault? Probably. Are wine reviewers pompous? Mostly. But is there really an incredible variety of flavors and textures in red wine alone? Yes there is. And don't get me started on cognac and whiskey.
- freework 13y ago
  If there is such a large variety of flavors that can be detected, then why does the scientific data suggest otherwise?
  - danielharan 13y ago
    Citation needed.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      Maybe he means this[1]. BTW, It's from the article we're discussing... [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870368380457453...
      - danielharan 13y ago
        Well, that only says that a single study showed that "flavor-trained professionals cannot reliably identify more than three or four components in a mixture". Surely you or people you know can reliably identify several more when not part of a mixture - or even identify one mixture as rose and smoke, while another could be rose and berry. camperman's point that "there really an incredible variety of flavors and textures in red wine alone" probably isn't very controversial to anyone that's actually tasted more than a few bottles.
alexh 13y ago
This article leans rather heavily on fallacious arguments. Taste is a weak sense -> Wine tasting is bullshit. On a subjective measure people varied within a range ( of only 8 points ) -> Wine tasting is bullshit. People are subject to anchoring effects -> Wine tasting is bullshit Other senses play a powerful role in perception -> Wine tasting is bullshit Worrying argumentation. The studies themselves could be interesting though.
- acheron 13y ago
  An article built upon fallacious arguments? On a Gawker site? I'm shocked, shocked.
- homosaur 13y ago
  The thing I got from the article is the idea that a wine is a set score like a 95 is arbitrary silliness and so much of the wine community is set up around things like that. I do think that savvy consumers and aficionados have realized this for ages and have grown out of simply looking at scores and more strongly consider pairings and preferences. I, for instance, only really pay attention to the first digit of the wine score. Most people that are well schooled can pretty easily tell the difference between a 70 and a 90, I think the bullshit factor comes in when you're trying to grade these out and say this bordeaux is a 95 but this one is a 91.
SCdF 13y ago
Isn't this just like anything that is obviously subjective though? Wine, beer, food, fashion, cars, games, programming languages. In fact, I'm struggling to think of a collection of things that people enjoy that can be objectively measured (with the arguable exception of sports teams and the like, but that's only if you're judging them by their ability to win games, not things like who gives the best game for spectators). Targeting wine makes me think this is more of a "ha look at those elitist jerks sipping on their wine we are the 99%" whine than anything else.
- homosaur 13y ago
  I don't really think that's the case in this article since some of the harshest criticism of wine tasters comes from the wine magazine guy.
rscale 13y ago
Wine is a vivid reminder that we're not not just creating value, we're creating perceived value. There are countless products that earn higher margins (and loyalty) because customers like the story, the design or some other aspect of the product or service that doesn't really help the customer. But these things matter. At the end of the day, we're not perfectly rational robots. We're people.
patrickmay 13y ago
A whimsical yet austere post, heavy on the bombast but with hints of compassion and, for the discerning reader, notes of plaintive wishfulness, with a bitter yet wholesome finish.
- tkellogg 13y ago
  That one's got to be $30, at least! Probably a red...
cdjk 13y ago
I don't have a sense of smell (technically it's called anosmia for the curious), and I completely agree. I find that most wine, especially red wine, is fairly bad. White wine seems to be more consistent, but after reading this article and some of the comments I wonder if it's because it's usually refrigerated. I've never done a blind red/white test. That sounds like an interesting project for the weekend. I should put a bottle of red in the fridge. Beer, on the other hand, is something that is both more consistent and more varied. And usually cheaper.
sologoub 13y ago
This is actually quite funny - the author obviously chased numbers and by inference prestige of the wine. Yeah, the reviews are BS, but who cares? I don't drink wine for the label or points it earned. In fact, my favorite wine comes from a region known for sacrilegious levels of fruitiness (Paso Robles) and I really enjoy being able to taste/smell the barrel toasting (a no-no in refined wines). Bottom line, I enjoy every second of this experience, whether it's real or in my head, I really don't care... And neither should you! :)
- pessimizer 13y ago
  "Wine tasting is bullshit" is different than saying "people don't like wine." People love wine. It's fruity and gets you drunk.
- equalarrow 13y ago
  Mmmm, hellz yah, I love that area! Excellent for some of my favs - Zin's, Syrah's - yummy! My wife and I belong to a few vineyard's clubs in the SLO area. Beautiful scenery, beautiful wines. I always recommend this outside of Napa if you're in CA for a visit or just looking for a good weekend.
derefr 13y ago
I think it's important to distinguish wine reviews done for the sake of properly pairing a wine with the people who prefer that wine (clustering analysis, basically), with reviews that try to rank all wines on some sort of single-axis quantitative measurement (i.e. the Parker scale.) The former is useful--read a review, see a bunch of adjectives you prefer in your wines attached to something, go out and buy it where you otherwise wouldn't have, enjoy yourself. The latter, though, is agreed by even the majority of the wine journalism industry to be a disgrace, driving prices both up and down by creating an artificial power-law ranking for wines, where the (good!) wines in the middle are ignored in favor of everyone competing over $3500 bottles that happen to get 99 arbitrary "points."
- kbenson 13y ago
  > The former is useful--read a review, see a bunch of adjectives you prefer in your wines attached to something, go out and buy it where you otherwise wouldn't have, enjoy yourself. Is it? The article points to studies that correlate verbiage price. Additionally, it makes a case that reviewers generally can't identify more than six or so flavors in a wine. Combined with evidence that they often can't even tell red from white, what chance is there the review will be accurate about specifics within a category when they can't even be trusted to get the category right?
  - derefr 13y ago
    > studies that correlate verbiage price There are certain terms that do just mean "it tastes expensive," yes (and reviewers that are paid by the word frequently whip out the wine-taster's thesaurus to spew them all over the page to fill their quota.) But the kinds of details I'm talking about aren't those--looking for, say, a "hint of nutmeg" in a wine won't put you into a higher echelon of prices. It'll just give you wines that taste more like nutmeg. > it makes a case that reviewers generally can't identify more than six or so flavors in a wine I don't see what's wrong with that. Six is already a lot of details to pick out. By that point, you're getting down past the standards of the label and into things like "orange zest", which really do let you discriminate a wine with a flavor you might want to try from one that turns you off. > they often can't even tell red from white This isn't as shocking a pronouncement as it's made out to be. Here's the quote: > They called it "jammy," for example, and noted the flavors imparted by its "crushed red fruit." This implies that they clearly could tell it wasn't your average red--those are the kinds of things you would say about a red (usually as a veiled insult) when it doesn't have any tannin or oak in it, which tends to imply that it's basically a white made with red grapes (that is, made with white-wine processes, that don't seek to capture tannins.) Whites and reds, although they seem like (and are treated like) separate things, are really just a spectrum; there's no dividing point where a white becomes a red, flavor-wise; there are whites that taste like reds, and reds that taste like whites. The category is just about the color, nothing else.
danielharan 13y ago
That naive wine-drinkers prefer cheap wines is not a result of wine-tasting being bullshit. It's a result of naive drinkers preferring sweetened wine, and industry players greedily obliging. Most people, given exposure over years, will prefer more better wines. You can accelerate that process by tastings: 5-6 small glasses so you can properly compare wines, repeated over a few weeks. This works even if people don't know the prices, and without guidance from experts.
- kbenson 13y ago
  That doesn't seem to address what the article was about at all. I hate to say this, because it always sounds like you're being an asshole, but I think it's warranted in some instances, in it's sincere form; Did you read the article before posting?
  - danielharan 13y ago
    I most certainly did. This was addressing the section towards the end, "The Exception": "among amateur wine drinkers [...], the survey found [...] a negative correlation between price and happiness". Check the residual sugars in Menage a Trois, Apothic Red and similar wines. They get that by adding concentrated grape juice, then enough chemicals to stop those sugars from undergoing more fermentation. Lots of amateur wine drinkers love that style. If saying this makes me an asshole, so be it.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      This was addressing the section towards the end, "The Exception": "among amateur wine drinkers [...], the survey found [...] a negative correlation between price and happiness". Fair enough, I didn't make that connection. For me the main take-away form the article was that even critics have problems with repeatability and identifying what I believed to be core identifying features. If saying this makes me an asshole, so be it. I meant "you" in the general sense, implying I would sound like an asshole for saying it.
prawn 13y ago
"Wine tasting is bullshit" - what a load of link-baiting crap. Wine tasting isn't just reviewers and their rankings. It's fun, it's poetic, it's analytical, it's exploration and so on. Ultimately, you will like what you like and no serious person in wine will tell you otherwise. Thinking more about what you're tasting or how what you're using works, or why an advertisement said something the way it said, and countless other examples are a joy in life: understanding our world. If you can buy your wine through cellar door tastings, you are more able to pick things you like (adjusted for price) rather than be reliant on brands, labels, price and the opinions of others. What you taste and how many descriptors you feel you can assign is up to you and of course it will vary from one person to another. I can't remember having ever bought something based on the medals printed on the label; I have once or twice heard of a surprise winner (e.g., $15 bottle taking out a competition) and wanted to try it for myself. I think that's on par with hearing "critics are raving" and checking out a film. The courses I have done don't teach good vs bad but teach you to identify what are considered to be faults - corked, brettanomyces, etc - but also note that in some cases these are regarded as complexities by some. e.g, if you like something, you like it. And ultimately help you identify regional differences, varieties and so on. Some people are happy to drive their car. Others like knowing how it works and tinkering. Doesn't mean car knowledge is bullshit. I really enjoy blind tastings and trying to guess years, regions and varieties. My wife's family are very involved in wine (vineyard owner, winemaker, wine sales, etc) and take blind tastings to ever more flowery levels. There's a lot of name-dropping of regions and exotic varieties but it's all in good fun as entertainment, and an excuse to try more.
kmtrowbr 13y ago
I have a spent a lot of time going "wine tasting" and derived a lot of enjoyment from it. Here are some of my observations: * The sense of taste is very influenced by experience. If something makes you sick (bad chicken), you can develop a lasting aversion to that taste. Conversely, if something makes you feel good over and over again (alcohol), over time you will start to like it, even if, that thing doesn't taste very good initially. * The fact that the taste of wine, beer, booze ... is not simply a "good" taste like sugar or protein, makes it more "complex" and interesting. Candy = yum, but as you get older, it's kind of gross. Alcohol, on the other hand, stays interesting. This theory is not very scientific, but I think it has a grain of truth. * Wine in the USA carries a heavy burden ... of Americans' feelings of cultural inferiority (in general, but originally towards Europe). "Wine tasting" even more so seems like an effete, silly, snobby thing to do. It's in the same neighborhood as the USA's love-hate relationship with France. It got put into our cultural code at our founding, and we still have it. "They think they're so cool and sophisticated. What a load of bull! And yet, it seems like there's something there that we don't understand." Argh, we can't seem to get over it. * Anyways, my advice: just have fun and don't take the experts seriously, certainly don't feel inadequate. It is bullshit, it is an art -- in some domains, who can tell the difference? If there's one thing that "wine tasting" can help you to do, it's just to PAY ATTENTION to what you are tasting, and talk about it. We shove so much crap into our face that we don't even really taste, and it's sad because "tasting" can be a source of great pleasure. Also, it can be fun to think of Wine Country as an especially epic bar crawl that you go on when you're old and starting in the morning. This is when drinking gets serious.
wordplay 13y ago
Subjectivity doesn't mean it's bullshit, we might just be measuring the wrong thing. Genetics + a oral chemistry test might be a far better predictor of what wines you'll enjoy than an expert's opinion.
prakster 13y ago
Anyone have a story or experience of the difference between the Two Buck Chuck (Charles Shaw wine) vs a high end vintage?
fortybillion 13y ago
Has anyone ever debunked or repeated the food-coloured white wine test? I've heard this one before and it always seemed very strange to me as white and red wines have such clearly distinguishable characteristics.

35 points by sxp 13y ago

I can't answer for taste, as I don't drink wine. My wife does, and it's my job to remember what she likes. The nose, however, can usually type a grape or at least distinguish things like Cabernet with soft reds like Pinot Noir. Does that mean they taste better or worse? No idea, but the combination of color (intensity) and smell lets me guess the grape pretty well. Given the repeated success of things like $2 buck Chuck, it seems that typical people would do well with $4-14 bottles of table red or table white for most applications. There's a lot of options in these price ranges. My wife has obvious preferences for wine selection based on meals. So I have to assume there's taste differences involved.

femto 13y ago

Another data point: I once threw a party, to which people had to bring a wine, priced between $10 and $15. On arrival, each wine was placed in a numbered container, so the identity of each wine was unknown, and attendees were given a score sheet. My contribution was a $5/bottle and $30/bottle wildcard. The $5 wildcard came out top. I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle. The bottom wine was a truly dreadful, dirt cheap cask wine that someone had brought and decanted into a bottle for a joke. At the end of the night, the scores and identities were revealed. Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it. The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random.

EvanKelly 13y ago
The holding the nose experiment isn't surprising at all. It's a common children's technique for eating 'gross' healthy things and not tasting them. This led to my 4th grade science fair project which was blind taste testing of Jelly Bellies (Coffee, Strawberry, Licorice, and Buttery Popcorn). I can't remember the results perfectly, but in general, people were pretty worthless at telling them apart without their nose.
meepmorp 13y ago
> The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random Not surprising, given that the sense of smell is a significant part of our experience of taste.
derefr 13y ago
> saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it This actually seems perfectly valid to me. One of the universal qualities of "expensive-tasting" things is that their tastes are usually complex--it takes a while to work through exactly what makes them good. They're meant to also be good in the "food" sense, yes, but more than anything, they're supposed to be art--of the kind you would stand in a gallery analyzing, trying to figure out how the time and place of its creation influenced its style, etc. With no training, you'll usually ignore flavor entirely, and just go for the wine that has the most sugar and a decent amount of alcohol. It might not actually be the one you most prefer in the moment (though it certainly could be)--but when you're asked for a rating, it's the one you can justify, and our post-hoc justifications for preferences frequently overwrite our (weaker) memories of experiential preferences.
- ryandvm 13y ago
  What a load of crap. If you need proper training to tell if something is "good" then you're not detecting goodness at all. All you're doing is engaging in pattern matching with a bunch of other pretentious assholes.
prawn 13y ago
"The $5 wildcard came out top." Hope everyone who liked it stocked up. But is this a data point against "wine tasting" (supporting that wine tasting is bullshit) or just saying that price isn't necessarily an indicator of preference? I like some cheap and cheerful restaurants more than celebrity chef restaurants in big brand hotel lobbies. "I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle." You don't mention what sort of people were at the party, but perhaps they just like an even blend? "Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it." I think a lot of that comes down to human nature and you would find equivalent comments and tests with all sorts of product categories including other beverages, quality of fabric/fashion, speaker systems, etc.

runT1ME 13y ago

Less bullshit than cancer research though, apparently?

kbenson 13y ago
Indeed. Nice call. For posterity sake, I'll drop a hint[1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5679685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5679685

boyter 13y ago

It's not total bullshit. For the record I am not a wine buff (more interested in beer personally) but it doesn't take long for the average drinker to learn to recognize the difference in taste between grape varieties in new world wines and regions in old. It also doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine. That said do I think you can score a wine though? No. You can certainly pick between a selection of wines and rank them in order of what you prefer. You can certainly have a preference for style/type food combo icewine and botrytis for dessert or Riesling with seafood. This is the benefit in wine tasting in my opinion. Not impressing your friends with a 98 score wine but matching food appropriately.

ceejayoz 13y ago
> It also doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine. Have you done the sort of blindfold/label-free bottle tests described? If not, you're potentially falling for exactly the sort of thing the article is about.
- boyter 13y ago
  Yes I have. So long as I am not holding my nose I can still pick them out. That might be due to the wines in Australia having very distinctive flavour's though.
Steko 13y ago
"doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine." If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that the whole thing is bullshit?
- mike_herrera 13y ago
  Not in the slightest. As a counter-example, challenging food and music comes to mind.
  - pessimizer 13y ago

camperman 13y ago

Strange article. I've spent a lot of time in one of the finest winelands in the world (Stellenbosch) and I used to be a supertaster (with blindfolded tests to prove it to sceptical friends) and I've blended some of my own. It's definitely all very personal, subjective and prone to loads of outside influences. Are the limitations of language partially at fault? Probably. Are wine reviewers pompous? Mostly. But is there really an incredible variety of flavors and textures in red wine alone? Yes there is. And don't get me started on cognac and whiskey.

freework 13y ago
If there is such a large variety of flavors that can be detected, then why does the scientific data suggest otherwise?
- danielharan 13y ago
  Citation needed.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    Maybe he means this[1]. BTW, It's from the article we're discussing... [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870368380457453...
    - danielharan 13y ago
      Well, that only says that a single study showed that "flavor-trained professionals cannot reliably identify more than three or four components in a mixture". Surely you or people you know can reliably identify several more when not part of a mixture - or even identify one mixture as rose and smoke, while another could be rose and berry. camperman's point that "there really an incredible variety of flavors and textures in red wine alone" probably isn't very controversial to anyone that's actually tasted more than a few bottles.

alexh 13y ago

This article leans rather heavily on fallacious arguments. Taste is a weak sense -> Wine tasting is bullshit. On a subjective measure people varied within a range ( of only 8 points ) -> Wine tasting is bullshit. People are subject to anchoring effects -> Wine tasting is bullshit Other senses play a powerful role in perception -> Wine tasting is bullshit Worrying argumentation. The studies themselves could be interesting though.

acheron 13y ago
An article built upon fallacious arguments? On a Gawker site? I'm shocked, shocked.
homosaur 13y ago
The thing I got from the article is the idea that a wine is a set score like a 95 is arbitrary silliness and so much of the wine community is set up around things like that. I do think that savvy consumers and aficionados have realized this for ages and have grown out of simply looking at scores and more strongly consider pairings and preferences. I, for instance, only really pay attention to the first digit of the wine score. Most people that are well schooled can pretty easily tell the difference between a 70 and a 90, I think the bullshit factor comes in when you're trying to grade these out and say this bordeaux is a 95 but this one is a 91.

SCdF 13y ago

Isn't this just like anything that is obviously subjective though? Wine, beer, food, fashion, cars, games, programming languages. In fact, I'm struggling to think of a collection of things that people enjoy that can be objectively measured (with the arguable exception of sports teams and the like, but that's only if you're judging them by their ability to win games, not things like who gives the best game for spectators). Targeting wine makes me think this is more of a "ha look at those elitist jerks sipping on their wine we are the 99%" whine than anything else.

homosaur 13y ago
I don't really think that's the case in this article since some of the harshest criticism of wine tasters comes from the wine magazine guy.

rscale 13y ago

Wine is a vivid reminder that we're not not just creating value, we're creating perceived value. There are countless products that earn higher margins (and loyalty) because customers like the story, the design or some other aspect of the product or service that doesn't really help the customer. But these things matter. At the end of the day, we're not perfectly rational robots. We're people.

patrickmay 13y ago

A whimsical yet austere post, heavy on the bombast but with hints of compassion and, for the discerning reader, notes of plaintive wishfulness, with a bitter yet wholesome finish.

tkellogg 13y ago
That one's got to be $30, at least! Probably a red...

cdjk 13y ago

I don't have a sense of smell (technically it's called anosmia for the curious), and I completely agree. I find that most wine, especially red wine, is fairly bad. White wine seems to be more consistent, but after reading this article and some of the comments I wonder if it's because it's usually refrigerated. I've never done a blind red/white test. That sounds like an interesting project for the weekend. I should put a bottle of red in the fridge. Beer, on the other hand, is something that is both more consistent and more varied. And usually cheaper.

sologoub 13y ago

This is actually quite funny - the author obviously chased numbers and by inference prestige of the wine. Yeah, the reviews are BS, but who cares? I don't drink wine for the label or points it earned. In fact, my favorite wine comes from a region known for sacrilegious levels of fruitiness (Paso Robles) and I really enjoy being able to taste/smell the barrel toasting (a no-no in refined wines). Bottom line, I enjoy every second of this experience, whether it's real or in my head, I really don't care... And neither should you! :)

pessimizer 13y ago
"Wine tasting is bullshit" is different than saying "people don't like wine." People love wine. It's fruity and gets you drunk.
equalarrow 13y ago
Mmmm, hellz yah, I love that area! Excellent for some of my favs - Zin's, Syrah's - yummy! My wife and I belong to a few vineyard's clubs in the SLO area. Beautiful scenery, beautiful wines. I always recommend this outside of Napa if you're in CA for a visit or just looking for a good weekend.

derefr 13y ago

I think it's important to distinguish wine reviews done for the sake of properly pairing a wine with the people who prefer that wine (clustering analysis, basically), with reviews that try to rank all wines on some sort of single-axis quantitative measurement (i.e. the Parker scale.) The former is useful--read a review, see a bunch of adjectives you prefer in your wines attached to something, go out and buy it where you otherwise wouldn't have, enjoy yourself. The latter, though, is agreed by even the majority of the wine journalism industry to be a disgrace, driving prices both up and down by creating an artificial power-law ranking for wines, where the (good!) wines in the middle are ignored in favor of everyone competing over $3500 bottles that happen to get 99 arbitrary "points."

kbenson 13y ago
> The former is useful--read a review, see a bunch of adjectives you prefer in your wines attached to something, go out and buy it where you otherwise wouldn't have, enjoy yourself. Is it? The article points to studies that correlate verbiage price. Additionally, it makes a case that reviewers generally can't identify more than six or so flavors in a wine. Combined with evidence that they often can't even tell red from white, what chance is there the review will be accurate about specifics within a category when they can't even be trusted to get the category right?
- derefr 13y ago
  > studies that correlate verbiage price There are certain terms that do just mean "it tastes expensive," yes (and reviewers that are paid by the word frequently whip out the wine-taster's thesaurus to spew them all over the page to fill their quota.) But the kinds of details I'm talking about aren't those--looking for, say, a "hint of nutmeg" in a wine won't put you into a higher echelon of prices. It'll just give you wines that taste more like nutmeg. > it makes a case that reviewers generally can't identify more than six or so flavors in a wine I don't see what's wrong with that. Six is already a lot of details to pick out. By that point, you're getting down past the standards of the label and into things like "orange zest", which really do let you discriminate a wine with a flavor you might want to try from one that turns you off. > they often can't even tell red from white This isn't as shocking a pronouncement as it's made out to be. Here's the quote: > They called it "jammy," for example, and noted the flavors imparted by its "crushed red fruit." This implies that they clearly could tell it wasn't your average red--those are the kinds of things you would say about a red (usually as a veiled insult) when it doesn't have any tannin or oak in it, which tends to imply that it's basically a white made with red grapes (that is, made with white-wine processes, that don't seek to capture tannins.) Whites and reds, although they seem like (and are treated like) separate things, are really just a spectrum; there's no dividing point where a white becomes a red, flavor-wise; there are whites that taste like reds, and reds that taste like whites. The category is just about the color, nothing else.

danielharan 13y ago

That naive wine-drinkers prefer cheap wines is not a result of wine-tasting being bullshit. It's a result of naive drinkers preferring sweetened wine, and industry players greedily obliging. Most people, given exposure over years, will prefer more better wines. You can accelerate that process by tastings: 5-6 small glasses so you can properly compare wines, repeated over a few weeks. This works even if people don't know the prices, and without guidance from experts.

kbenson 13y ago
That doesn't seem to address what the article was about at all. I hate to say this, because it always sounds like you're being an asshole, but I think it's warranted in some instances, in it's sincere form; Did you read the article before posting?
- danielharan 13y ago
  I most certainly did. This was addressing the section towards the end, "The Exception": "among amateur wine drinkers [...], the survey found [...] a negative correlation between price and happiness". Check the residual sugars in Menage a Trois, Apothic Red and similar wines. They get that by adding concentrated grape juice, then enough chemicals to stop those sugars from undergoing more fermentation. Lots of amateur wine drinkers love that style. If saying this makes me an asshole, so be it.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    This was addressing the section towards the end, "The Exception": "among amateur wine drinkers [...], the survey found [...] a negative correlation between price and happiness". Fair enough, I didn't make that connection. For me the main take-away form the article was that even critics have problems with repeatability and identifying what I believed to be core identifying features. If saying this makes me an asshole, so be it. I meant "you" in the general sense, implying I would sound like an asshole for saying it.

prawn 13y ago

"Wine tasting is bullshit" - what a load of link-baiting crap. Wine tasting isn't just reviewers and their rankings. It's fun, it's poetic, it's analytical, it's exploration and so on. Ultimately, you will like what you like and no serious person in wine will tell you otherwise. Thinking more about what you're tasting or how what you're using works, or why an advertisement said something the way it said, and countless other examples are a joy in life: understanding our world. If you can buy your wine through cellar door tastings, you are more able to pick things you like (adjusted for price) rather than be reliant on brands, labels, price and the opinions of others. What you taste and how many descriptors you feel you can assign is up to you and of course it will vary from one person to another. I can't remember having ever bought something based on the medals printed on the label; I have once or twice heard of a surprise winner (e.g., $15 bottle taking out a competition) and wanted to try it for myself. I think that's on par with hearing "critics are raving" and checking out a film. The courses I have done don't teach good vs bad but teach you to identify what are considered to be faults - corked, brettanomyces, etc - but also note that in some cases these are regarded as complexities by some. e.g, if you like something, you like it. And ultimately help you identify regional differences, varieties and so on. Some people are happy to drive their car. Others like knowing how it works and tinkering. Doesn't mean car knowledge is bullshit. I really enjoy blind tastings and trying to guess years, regions and varieties. My wife's family are very involved in wine (vineyard owner, winemaker, wine sales, etc) and take blind tastings to ever more flowery levels. There's a lot of name-dropping of regions and exotic varieties but it's all in good fun as entertainment, and an excuse to try more.

kmtrowbr 13y ago

I have a spent a lot of time going "wine tasting" and derived a lot of enjoyment from it. Here are some of my observations: * The sense of taste is very influenced by experience. If something makes you sick (bad chicken), you can develop a lasting aversion to that taste. Conversely, if something makes you feel good over and over again (alcohol), over time you will start to like it, even if, that thing doesn't taste very good initially. * The fact that the taste of wine, beer, booze ... is not simply a "good" taste like sugar or protein, makes it more "complex" and interesting. Candy = yum, but as you get older, it's kind of gross. Alcohol, on the other hand, stays interesting. This theory is not very scientific, but I think it has a grain of truth. * Wine in the USA carries a heavy burden ... of Americans' feelings of cultural inferiority (in general, but originally towards Europe). "Wine tasting" even more so seems like an effete, silly, snobby thing to do. It's in the same neighborhood as the USA's love-hate relationship with France. It got put into our cultural code at our founding, and we still have it. "They think they're so cool and sophisticated. What a load of bull! And yet, it seems like there's something there that we don't understand." Argh, we can't seem to get over it. * Anyways, my advice: just have fun and don't take the experts seriously, certainly don't feel inadequate. It is bullshit, it is an art -- in some domains, who can tell the difference? If there's one thing that "wine tasting" can help you to do, it's just to PAY ATTENTION to what you are tasting, and talk about it. We shove so much crap into our face that we don't even really taste, and it's sad because "tasting" can be a source of great pleasure. Also, it can be fun to think of Wine Country as an especially epic bar crawl that you go on when you're old and starting in the morning. This is when drinking gets serious.

wordplay 13y ago

Subjectivity doesn't mean it's bullshit, we might just be measuring the wrong thing. Genetics + a oral chemistry test might be a far better predictor of what wines you'll enjoy than an expert's opinion.

prakster 13y ago

Anyone have a story or experience of the difference between the Two Buck Chuck (Charles Shaw wine) vs a high end vintage?

fortybillion 13y ago

Has anyone ever debunked or repeated the food-coloured white wine test? I've heard this one before and it always seemed very strange to me as white and red wines have such clearly distinguishable characteristics.