Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > August > 06 > Entry
Would YOU be able to tell the difference between a $15 and a $150 wine?
Check out the book entitled “The Wine Trials: 100 Everyday Wines Under $15 that Beat $50 to $150 Wines in Brown-Bag Blind Tastings.” and the Reuters story entitled “Psssst - Have I got a cheap red wine for you!” that explores the issues raised in the book.
In the story, author Robin Goldstein declares expensive wine all but a sham:
“Most wine in the world is cheap wine. It’s only in the last 10 years or so that wines over $50 have taken off. It’s really a success of marketing, not taste,” Golstein told Reuters. “There have always been good wines and better wines, but the luxury products manufacturers and the mass brands got really smart about marketing their products. They created this niche out of thin air.”
Goldstein reaches this conclusion because when he and his editor hand-picked more than 500 of their friends of varying degrees of experience with wine to blind-taste a bunch of wines, they overall preferred cheaper to more expensive: they preferred the taste of a $9 Beringer Founders’ Estate Cabernet Sauvignon to a $120 Beringer Private Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, for example, and liked Domaine Ste. Michelle Cuvee Brut ($12) over Dom Perignon Champagne, ($150).
Never mind that the Beringer Private Reserve was probably not meant to be drunk for many more years and still had its youthful, tannic bite, or that when any two wines are tasted side by side and the general population (including many wine experts) is asked which they prefer, they’re almost always going to choose the one that has more sweetness to it. Those inconvenient truths get in the way of the screaming headline and the desire to poke fun at all the wine snobs who spend money on more expensive wines just because they’re seeking status and not because the wine actually tastes better.
The story does point out that wine experts — let’s assume they’re talking about those who have more experience with and enthusiasm for wines than average — “preferred the more expensive wines, not surprisingly …”
If that’s the case, gee, maybe that marketing niche that Goldstein was talking about wasn’t created “out of thin air” after all, eh?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Keith Sennikoff
October 9, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this
Beyond the silly commentaries by this less-than-well-informed author, the sad fact remains that a significant number of the wines reviewed are carried exclusively by the Whole Foods chain, and that the book is the only wine book required to be sold within Whole Foods wine departments. This book is a sham, written by a fraud.By Ed
August 8, 2008 10:22 PM | Link to this
Read the book. I bought it today and read through most of it. It goes through a lot of how perception of price impacts the rating. They discuss studies where the same wine was presented to “experts”, in both a cheap and a famous name bottle. Same wine, very different results. They also discuss the Parker ratings and how over the past 7 years something like 71% of the wines they review over a certain price get a 90 or better. Why? Just because it costs more?By Manola
August 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
First of all, who has those many friends?! Secondly, well, thanks, but this is nothing new. The American wine consumer is still in his/her infancy. When we are kids, we like fruit juice and chocolate milk. Espresso and beer taste gross to a child. But as we mature, we develop a palate and things change. How many of you drink chocolate milk on a regular basis? So the infant American wine drinker wants sweet, soft, easy to drink wines, and those are extremely easy to make and therefore are very inexpensive. Educate a wine drinker, expose them to the subleties and nuances of wine, and their palate will change.By Douglas Systrom
August 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
This discussion has been around for months now. I think the bottom line (and think true for any taste … cheese, beer, liquor, etc) is that the casual taster goes lighter in their stated “like more ” vote vs. someone working to explore a variety of product. A casual beer drinker wanting a cool refreshment on a hot day may well “love” Bud Light. Give them a Belgian Trappist Ale and you’ll shock the system. Once you go to the “dark side” and start tasting Trappist or other “crafted” ales it is very hard to go back to the lighter, sweeter beers. I started my wine journey with a love and want for dry white wines. Now I rarely (but sometimes) drink white and given a choice always go with a “richer, deeper, more complex” red wine.By Ed
August 6, 2008 10:48 PM | Link to this
You can run the experiment yourself at home. We have an annual wine tasting party where all the bottles are in brown bags and everyone scores them. Now some in the crowd are serious wine drinkers, some not. You would be surprised at what wins. Now we don’t have any $50 or $100 wines, but the price point will range from $3 to around $30 or so. Usually the most expensive wine does not win. In fact, one year a $3 bottle of Crane Lake Cabernet won.By Joe
August 6, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
You want to compare Anchor Steam to that swill known as Bud Light? I understand the intent, but at least in the article they were comparing two wines.By Jim T
August 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Ask 500 NASCAR fans whether Bud Light or Anchor Steam is a better beer and the results would be the same.