Scientific proof $90 wine is better

Here's an interesting article that gives scientific proof that $90.00 bottle of wine is better than a $10.00 bottle of wine! I know not everyone is a Wino but it is interesting reading and gives some scientific credence to an age old discussion.

Article

I still wouldn't rely on the price tag. I prefer vintners' names and tasting scores.

I still wouldn't rely on the price tag. I prefer vintners' names and tasting scores.

I certainly agree but it is interesting to see data that supports the fact that as a general rule more expensive wines do affect people differently.

To be accurate the study shows a higher price tag affects people, not a more expensive wine.

Here's an interesting article that gives scientific proof that $90.00 bottle of wine is better than a $10.00 bottle of wine! I know not everyone is a Wino but it is interesting reading and gives some scientific credence to an age old discussion.

Article

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. It only proves that people are easily open to suggestion. The THINK that the 90.00 bottle is better because it is more expensive.

The only way to prove a particular bottle of 90.00 bottle is better than a 20.00 is a blind tasting without having any idea of the price.

[Robin Garr]

To be accurate the study shows a higher price tag affects people, not a more expensive wine.

Exactly so. What's more, the study procedure administered the wine through straws, a mechanism that would go a long way to mask the differences (if any) in wine quality among samples. This wasn't a test of wine quality at all. It was a test of consumer perceptions.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. It only proves that people are easily open to suggestion. The THINK that the 90.00 bottle is better because it is more expensive.

The only way to prove a particular bottle of 90.00 bottle is better than a 20.00 is a blind tasting without having any idea of the price.

Yeap, the study was really more about perception of quality in general than about wine. They even discussed how it relates to other products.

I remember reading somewhere that beer was better than wine anyway.

You're a baaaaad boy!

It was a test of consumer perceptions.

Isn't this what everything is actually about? If we personally perceive that something is better, it is better in our opinion. Everything to do with food taste is perception. Something that tastes wonderful to one person may taste terrible to someone else depending on that person's perception. Thus if we perceive something to be better (the $90.00 bottle of wine in this case) and it is to us since there is no quantitative measure of taste!

[Robin Garr]

Thus if we perceive something to be better (the $90.00 bottle of wine in this case) and it is to us since there is no quantitative measure of taste!

Philosophically, Mark, there's truth in that argument, but on the other hand, there's a pretty well established set of principles in wine judging, at least, that presumes a diverse group of experienced tasters can get together as judges in a wine competition, assign scores based on seemingly objective criteria to each wine, and rank them for awards.

I do a fair amount of wine judging in Europe and some Down Under, and it invariably surprises me how many judges - even judges from different backgrounds and cultures - can reach a close consensus with relatively few outliers.

So, in the sense that if you like well-done steaks drenched in molten Velveeta, then that confection is all right for you, there is no quantitative measure.

But I'd counter that it is possible for a group of people to establish common criteria for food or drink and then reach consistent agreement on rating them in a fairly objective way.

It was a test of consumer perceptions.

Isn't this what everything is actually about? If we personally perceive that something is better, it is better in our opinion. Everything to do with food taste is perception. Something that tastes wonderful to one person may taste terrible to someone else depending on that person's perception. Thus if we perceive something to be better (the $90.00 bottle of wine in this case) and it is to us since there is no quantitative measure of taste!

But what this story points out is that it is our pre-conceived perceptions derived from the wine's price which is what shapes our opinions of the wine's overall quality. In other words, if you take away the price tag of the $10 wine and the $90 wine (in addition to all other pre-conceived notions about the wine), it is possible that many people would not enjoy one much more than the other. Or if you switched the price tags, some people might actually enjoy the $10 wine more than the $90 simply because of their pre-concieved notions derived from the price tag.

But what Robin points out, I think, is that when you get a group of experts together on any subject, they can reliably come up with and adhere to an objective set of principles or flavor profiles to fairly judge a wine. I've never judged wine (or beer for that matter), but I was under the impression that the tastings were carried out blindly, without the judges knowing who made the product, how much it cost, or what ingredients were used. If that's not the case, then I would question some of the results from some of these events. Pre-conceived notions, in my opinion, can and will effect even the most highly trained experts in any field. It's why psychologists and other scientists keep themselves blind in a lot of the experiments they run.

But what this study showed is that, for the average non-experts, the price tag on a wine can effect how the taster perceives the taste of said wine. And that is not something to brag about for supporters of pricey, allegedly higher quality wines.

[Robin Garr]

But what this story points out is that it is our pre-conceived perceptions derived from the wine's price which is what shapes our opinions of the wine's overall quality. In other words, if you take away the price tag of the $10 wine and the $90 wine (in addition to all other pre-conceived notions about the wine), it is possible that many people would not enjoy one much more than the other. Or if you switched the price tags, some people might actually enjoy the $10 wine more than the $90 simply because of their pre-concieved notions derived from the price tag.

All true, but the curious test procedure in which the subjects tasted the wine through straws really takes any element of sensory evaluation out of it. Even trained tasters would be hard pressed to judge wine (or even call its value) if you're shooting it straight down your throat with a straw, bypassing your nose and most of your palate.

I was under the impression that the tastings were carried out blindly, without the judges knowing who made the product, how much it cost, or what ingredients were used.

It's certainly true that all competitions are "blind" as to the producer, and price would not normally be mentioned at all. In general, though, it's customary in most cases to reveal either the grape or general region (and, in fact, to present wines in "flights" where all come from the same place and are made from the same grapes or blends. This minimizes variables and ensures an apples-vs-apples (or Merlot-vs-Merlot) match.

All true, but the curious test procedure in which the subjects tasted the wine through straws really takes any element of sensory evaluation out of it. Even trained tasters would be hard pressed to judge wine (or even call its value) if you're shooting it straight down your throat with a straw, bypassing your nose and most of your palate.

Certainly. Also, is the color/appearance of the wine in the glass judged? I know that this is the case with beer.

It's certainly true that all competitions are "blind" as to the producer, and price would not normally be mentioned at all. In general, though, it's customary in most cases to reveal either the grape or general region (and, in fact, to present wines in "flights" where all come from the same place and are made from the same grapes or blends. This minimizes variables and ensures an apples-vs-apples (or Merlot-vs-Merlot) match.

That certainly makes a lot of sense. The same applies to beer, of course, considering that judges are also examining how closely the sample adheres to the flavor profile of the style. A porter that tastes like a really great pilsner ( impossible ) would not be judged highly, even though it has a taste of a good beer.

Sorry, off-topic a bit...

Labels..... Man Sometimes It's all about those labels...