3 ms·

Well, there's a big difference between the issue of wine rating silliness and the wide variety of flavor you'll find in wine. A $10 bottle of gabbiano tastes al

by carbon8 17y ago

Well, there's a big difference between the issue of wine rating silliness and the wide variety of flavor you'll find in wine. A $10 bottle of gabbiano tastes almost nothing like a $10 bottle of monticello rioja and neither will taste anything like your jug of wine. Saying they taste the same is like to saying orange juice tastes the same as lemon juice, and that both taste the same as grapefruit juice.

rdtsc 17y ago
I was saying that I couldn't taste the difference and according to the article, many other people can't either. They are essentially tasting the label and the marketing, which is why the marketing and the label should look different in both cases. They are people more sophisticated and better at wine tasting, but there are a lot of people who just follow irrational marketing cues.
- carbon8 17y ago
  "I was saying that I couldn't taste the difference and according to the article, many other people can't either." This isn't what the article is talking about. The article is arguing that subjective, linear wine ranking is faulty, that preferences are not objective or static, that it's difficult to distinguish between similar wines and that identifying individual flavors and scents (eg, "lavender, roasted herbs") are tied to the taster's imagination. If you can tell the difference between grapefruit juice and orange juice, you can tell the difference between a gabbiano, a monticello rioja and a generic merlot. They taste dramatically different and you can't give a merlot to someone who knows what chianti tastes like and have them believe it's a chianti. Different varietals have very distinct flavors. And when it comes to quality, there is a much, much more significant difference between a poorly stored, very low-quality wine and a mainstream ~$10/bottle wine than there is between a $20/bottle wine and a $100/bottle wine. After all, a number of the pricer wines would be simply $20/bottle if it weren't for the ratings systems critiqued by the article.

by carbon8 17y ago

rdtsc 17y ago

I was saying that I couldn't taste the difference and according to the article, many other people can't either. They are essentially tasting the label and the marketing, which is why the marketing and the label should look different in both cases. They are people more sophisticated and better at wine tasting, but there are a lot of people who just follow irrational marketing cues.

carbon8 17y ago
"I was saying that I couldn't taste the difference and according to the article, many other people can't either." This isn't what the article is talking about. The article is arguing that subjective, linear wine ranking is faulty, that preferences are not objective or static, that it's difficult to distinguish between similar wines and that identifying individual flavors and scents (eg, "lavender, roasted herbs") are tied to the taster's imagination. If you can tell the difference between grapefruit juice and orange juice, you can tell the difference between a gabbiano, a monticello rioja and a generic merlot. They taste dramatically different and you can't give a merlot to someone who knows what chianti tastes like and have them believe it's a chianti. Different varietals have very distinct flavors. And when it comes to quality, there is a much, much more significant difference between a poorly stored, very low-quality wine and a mainstream ~$10/bottle wine than there is between a $20/bottle wine and a $100/bottle wine. After all, a number of the pricer wines would be simply $20/bottle if it weren't for the ratings systems critiqued by the article.