Wine Snobs Get Taken for a Lot of Money

stanolshefski said:   You really have to define what a "bargain basement wine" is. Is that a certain price level? Is that mega-brand wines?
Something like wine F in Yuyak's testing. That wine was clearly disliked by most of the crowd. There's something about it which is wrong, but at that price point, the producers don't have to care, because that market segment is looking for something to get them drunk, not something to savor. Interestingly enough, though, a few people did enjoy it. If $2 wine works for you, then consider yourself lucky.

So, to use a clearer label, let's call it a wine which doesn't have to compete on taste.

By comparison, people don't throw back 40's of OE because they appreciate its craftsmanship.

ppatin said:   Dawgswin said:   Edit: Anybody remember Fast Eddie Felson's scheme in "The Color of Money" where he sold generic whiskey along with top shelf liquor labels? I wonder if one could really get away with something like that for long. <scratches stubble on chin methodically>

I can't say for whiskey, but with vodka you absolutely can tell the difference between the el-cheapo stuff that comes in plastic handles and the higher-end ones. It's not so much in the flavor (vodka is supposed to be tasteless anyways) but really cheap vodka burns when it's going down.

It is MUCH easier to tell the difference between specific whiskeys than vodkas... but rot-gut is rot-gut and usually be pretty readily ID'd as such unless it's in a mixed drink.

When I lived in Venice, we bought enjoyable table wine for a couple euros for a LITER... we would bring our own jug. It felt like a gas station. Decent table wine should be a commodity product and priced accordingly.

This guy has been suspect for a while.

Some of us bash what we don't understand, it's not about money to most that pony up for this stuff. If I had the dough, would I? Heck yea!

wineberserkers.com has a huge thread on this guy dating if anyone's interested in how small the wine world really is

Wine comes in a bottle? Funny, I always bought it in a box.

BlueSeaLake said:   I think any FWF needs to take the time to explore some lower priced wine. Rather than always reaching for the $60 bottle for a night of movie and popcorn. I used to like (found acceptable) the taste of Aldi's wine at about $3 for casual drinking and cooking, however after a long absence (due to fantastic bargains at Binny's) I returned to Aldi and found the price had dropped by 20 cents, but the taste was horrible.
Maybe they changed vendors ? , maybe it was simply a bad batch or stored very poorly ? Whatever it was I'll avoid it for a while.
Bottom line is wine does not have to expensive to be good.

I didn't know Aldi carried wine until I looked at their website. I found a location that carried it, bought two bottles of each. The malbec was drinkable. The rest will be converted to vinegar. What's Binny's?

Cheap white wine is almost always easier to drink than cheap red wine.

outtawhack said:   There is no real world evidence to support any of the above. There is plenty of research, however, to support the exact opposite conclusion. If you haven't listened to the freakonomics podcast you should check it out.

No evidence?

Explain how high end wineries are making actual productive use of funds for wines priced in the luxury segment. I understand why they charge those premiums, whether it's because they're paying rent on a huge, expensive, and historic facility, doing things manually to an excessive degree, sending representatives on marketing junkets to rub elbows with billionaires, or artificially limiting supply to produce a Veblen good - but how does that translate into a better wine? There is only so much expense which can add value.

As for my last paragraph, that isn't an evidence-based claim. That is a judgement against a spending decision made by somebody who has money to burn but not the ability to understand or appreciate what they're burning it on. Wine snobs will dismiss that position as me not having an "acquired taste" or lacking the training and experience to "appreciate" it. I don't like high end wine and I don't like low end wine, so I don't drink either. Some people enjoy well-made wines, other people like drinking and prefer a price point which they can afford. All of that is all well and good. What I don't believe for a second is that people need to spend upwards of four figures per bottle in order to be satisfied. At that level, it is about status, marketing, and socialization.

Suppose that somebody could use agricultural science and industrial efficiency to replicate the high-scoring taste of Cristal for $10 a bottle. The masses would be satisfied, however I suspect that wine snobs would quickly change their tastes so they're not imbibing the same stuff as the plebs.

Could it be done one day? It wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't be marketed under a luxury brand.

The morale of the story: Next time you see a sommelier, punch him in the crotch.

swandown said:   Yuyak said:   A couple of dozen of my colleagues and I have a tripe-blinded wine-tasting party every other month or so. Basically, we pick a varietal (say Cabernet or Pinot Noir or Malbec or whatever) and everyone brings a bottle with a max price of $40 (no minimum). We tripe-blind with one person paper bagging it, having a second person come in and mark it 1~20 (or however many bottles there are). Throughout the course of the evening, we try each bottle and we individually score them. Finally, at the very end, after the scoring, the bottles are revealed and the purchaser announce the price (third blind).

We've done this probably a half a dozen times now with half a dozen varietals. Of course there are some variation and always some outliers, but EVERY SINGLE TIME as a group we got a statistically significant positive correlation between price and score. We've had some people bring in those $2-$3 bottles and almost everyone was able to pick them out each time. We've also had some people mix in a wrong varietal or duplicate bottles as controls.

That's because the bottles are ALL priced within $38 of each other. Mix in some bottles with greater price disparity and let us know if your results are the same. I did mention $40 max. We'd be more than happy to do the test with more expensive wines as soon as I find a sponsor. Interested

Winking Owl Cabernet and Merlot at Aldi Supermarkets is pretty tasty and very cheap - under $5.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   arvinz said:   what a fraud. he brought shame to indonesia
I believe jade and nyomi marcela did that

Good lord SIS thank you.

a quick GIS and ... tada!

jade and nyomi marcela

svr411 said:   Explain how high end wineries are making actual productive use of funds for wines priced in the luxury segment. I understand why they charge those premiums, whether it's because they're paying rent on a huge, expensive, and historic facility, doing things manually to an excessive degree, sending representatives on marketing junkets to rub elbows with billionaires, or artificially limiting supply to produce a Veblen good - but how does that translate into a better wine? There is only so much expense which can add value.I generally agree with you on this but to be fair, there COULD possibly non-expense factors that make for a better or more unique wine (special grapes, process, etc.). If you're the only winery that has the ability to produce a particular wine that people like, you can then jack up the price well beyond your costs. It's not that the money makes it better, the better makes the money. Of course, I don't drink wine so i don't know what I'm talking about, but I tend to side with those that say there's no difference between really really expensive and really really really expensive so it is indeed branding/snobbery.

beatme said:   elektronic said:   germanpope said:   just give me pint of Guinness

Tastes like soapy water.

What kind of soap are you using?Irish Spring.

Yuyak said:   A couple of dozen of my colleagues and I have a triple-blinded wine-tasting party every other month or so. Basically, we pick a varietal (say Cabernet or Pinot Noir or Malbec or whatever) and everyone brings a bottle with a max price of $40 (no minimum). We triple-blind with one person paper bagging it, having a second person come in and mark it 1~20 (or however many bottles there are). Throughout the course of the evening, we try each bottle and we individually score them. Finally, at the very end, after the scoring, the bottles are revealed and the purchaser announce the price (third blind).

We've done this probably a half a dozen times now with half a dozen varietals. Of course there are some variation and always some outliers, but EVERY SINGLE TIME as a group we got a statistically significant positive correlation between price and score. We've had some people bring in those $2-$3 bottles and almost everyone was able to pick them out each time. We've also had some people mix in a wrong varietal or duplicate bottles as controls.

Small N??

naas said:   If it's really a couple dozen, then it's probably a larger N than a lot of papers that get published using just grad students in it for the $10 or whatever.

I could find a confound in the study in that I bet there is a pretty evident inverse correlation between the price of wine and the thickness of the neck. And God help you if the brown paper bag doesn't obscure the twist top ring.

tolamapS said:   I have a good solution:

- i don't drink wine,
- i drink beer.

First of all, beer quality as far more consistent than wine quality. There is smaller varietal availability of beer, and beer is consistently priced at the same level. E.g., a bottle of Amstel is about the same no matter where you go (at home, it is less than $1 a bottle, at a cheap bar, it is 3-4, and at an expensive restaurants, 5-7).

Not entirely the case, there are tons of varietals and a decent price span once you start adding in the Belgian and microbrews. Just as many beer snobs as wine snobs. Can't think of the last time I had a bottle of beer that was below a buck though, since I avoid the mass produced Bud/Coors/ect... Normally a 6 pack is $8 or so for craftbrews, and more for some imports.

If you are drinking Belgian or "bomber" (22oz special editions, usually) bottles in a bar they can get quite pricey. $8-12 for draft belgian and 16-40 for large bottles. Most bombers are 4-10 at Whole Foods or similar retail.

Overall the price range is smaller, but most beer isn't shared so its per-serving. Even the larger bottles are only 2 smaller than normal servings.

I like the Cameron Hughes wines, some of the SAMs and Costcos sell it. I order direct, but for under 15 for most of the wine it compares to the more expensive win. They buy overage from wineries and bottle it themselves.

RedWolfe01 said:   tolamapS said:   I have a good solution:

- i don't drink wine,
- i drink beer.

First of all, beer quality as far more consistent than wine quality. There is smaller varietal availability of beer, and beer is consistently priced at the same level. E.g., a bottle of Amstel is about the same no matter where you go (at home, it is less than $1 a bottle, at a cheap bar, it is 3-4, and at an expensive restaurants, 5-7).

Not entirely the case, there are tons of varietals and a decent price span once you start adding in the Belgian and microbrews. Just as many beer snobs as wine snobs. Can't think of the last time I had a bottle of beer that was below a buck though, since I avoid the mass produced Bud/Coors/ect... Normally a 6 pack is $8 or so for craftbrews, and more for some imports.

If you are drinking Belgian or "bomber" (22oz special editions, usually) bottles in a bar they can get quite pricey. $8-12 for draft belgian and 16-40 for large bottles. Most bombers are 4-10 at Whole Foods or similar retail.

Overall the price range is smaller, but most beer isn't shared so its per-serving. Even the larger bottles are only 2 smaller than normal servings.

Moving to Germany saved me a lot of money in this regard