Expensive wine is gross and overrated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am sorry that you have not experienced truly incredible wine.

I don't even like wine! But certain wines are exceptional. They are also extremely expensive, and need to be kept in the right conditions. Some of them don't travel well, either. One branch of my family owns a vineyard in France. You won't find those in stores here. They have tastings and auctions over there.

Agree. I especially do not drink red wine, but when a relative who lives in wine country and buys very expensive wine selects a bottle at dinner, it is a game changer. But I'd never buy it myself at those prices, so I don't drink red wine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on this thread, I have revised my statement to now say there is no reason to ever spend more than $20 on a bottle. After that price, my opinion has been validated.

All the dollars spent after $20 are a stupidity/snobbishness/insecurity tax on try-hard social climbers.

To say that all wines at $10 are gross is pure ignorance and snobbishness as well. A large portion of the cost of wine is tax depending on where you live and where the wine comes from.

Maybe but almost all $10 wines are gross to anyone who has some experience with wine. There's no getting around that mass-produced, sugar, mega-purple, fake oak taste ...

But by all means, if you have some $10 bottles to recommend, let us know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you, OP. I've tasted $50 Italian reds that were delicious -- but I would sooner lop off a finger than spend $50 for a bottle of wine. So until I'm invited to another anniversary party where the host is opening the good stuff, I'll stick with my boxed stuff. Works for me.

$50? Ha.

Try several hundred dollars.

I see that many of you have no idea what truly prodigious wine is, or costs.

PP here whose DH has a big collection. I've tasted many wines between $50-$300 (current market value - so multiply that by 2 or 3 for what it would be on the restaurant wine list) and there's not much correlation between price and quality within that range. I've never had $1000 wines, but in that price range, you are probably getting a lot of fakes or stuff that has been poorly stored. Also, most of the people with that kind of $$ to throw around aren't actually into wine, but rather spending money.

[Anonymous]

Based on this thread, I have revised my statement to now say there is no reason to ever spend more than $20 on a bottle. After that price, my opinion has been validated.

All the dollars spent after $20 are a stupidity/snobbishness/insecurity tax on try-hard social climbers.

You are correct. All the blind taste tests of wine have indicated: (1) unsophisticated palates (and that is all of you DCUM) prefer cheaper wine ($20 and lower); and of course those wines are developed precisely to have mass appeal; (2) experts and trained professionals' preferences have no connection to price; or otherwise put, the rating of wine has no relationship to its price. That doesn't mean that a particular expensive wine is not excpetional, only that on average, they are no "better" by any standard.

So buy the $18 wine! (Secretly, you'll like it better!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Based on this thread, I have revised my statement to now say there is no reason to ever spend more than $20 on a bottle. After that price, my opinion has been validated.

All the dollars spent after $20 are a stupidity/snobbishness/insecurity tax on try-hard social climbers.

You are correct. All the blind taste tests of wine have indicated: (1) unsophisticated palates (and that is all of you DCUM) prefer cheaper wine ($20 and lower); and of course those wines are developed precisely to have mass appeal; (2) experts and trained professionals' preferences have no connection to price; or otherwise put, the rating of wine has no relationship to its price. That doesn't mean that a particular expensive wine is not excpetional, only that on average, they are no "better" by any standard.

So buy the $18 wine! (Secretly, you'll like it better!)

I actually don't believe this at all. I read the research study, and it does not replicate the actual experience of wine tasting. I think if you did a more targeted test comparing a mass-produced Cupcake type wine, and a high-end California fruit bomb, you'd get different results. Also, wine appreciation is learned. I'm sure most regular people prefer Taylor Swift to opera, but that doesn't mean opera is "gross." Also, no true wine geek would ever claim the quality of a wine is directly correlated to its price, so this is really economics research, not research on wine per se.

[Anonymous]

Based on this thread, I have revised my statement to now say there is no reason to ever spend more than $20 on a bottle. After that price, my opinion has been validated.

All the dollars spent after $20 are a stupidity/snobbishness/insecurity tax on try-hard social climbers.

You are correct. All the blind taste tests of wine have indicated: (1) unsophisticated palates (and that is all of you DCUM) prefer cheaper wine ($20 and lower); and of course those wines are developed precisely to have mass appeal; (2) experts and trained professionals' preferences have no connection to price; or otherwise put, the rating of wine has no relationship to its price. That doesn't mean that a particular expensive wine is not excpetional, only that on average, they are no "better" by any standard.

So buy the $18 wine! (Secretly, you'll like it better!)

I actually don't believe this at all. I read the research study, and it does not replicate the actual experience of wine tasting. I think if you did a more targeted test comparing a mass-produced Cupcake type wine, and a high-end California fruit bomb, you'd get different results. Also, wine appreciation is learned. I'm sure most regular people prefer Taylor Swift to opera, but that doesn't mean opera is "gross." Also, no true wine geek would ever claim the quality of a wine is directly correlated to its price, so this is really economics research, not research on wine per se.

Huh? You say you don't "believe" the study, but you say nothing that in any way undercuts its findings. Your "high-end California fruit bomb" wine might indeed score well with both groups, but that in no way negates the finding that on average higher priced wines were not rated more highly. And even experts were basically price-blind, so "learning wine appreciation" did not change the results.

[Anonymous]

Actually, the experts with their oh-so-sophisticated palates can't tell the difference either. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you, OP. I've tasted $50 Italian reds that were delicious -- but I would sooner lop off a finger than spend $50 for a bottle of wine. So until I'm invited to another anniversary party where the host is opening the good stuff, I'll stick with my boxed stuff. Works for me.

$50? Ha.

Try several hundred dollars.

I see that many of you have no idea what truly prodigious wine is, or costs.

I see that you have no idea what "prodigious" means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Based on this thread, I have revised my statement to now say there is no reason to ever spend more than $20 on a bottle. After that price, my opinion has been validated.

All the dollars spent after $20 are a stupidity/snobbishness/insecurity tax on try-hard social climbers.

You are correct. All the blind taste tests of wine have indicated: (1) unsophisticated palates (and that is all of you DCUM) prefer cheaper wine ($20 and lower); and of course those wines are developed precisely to have mass appeal; (2) experts and trained professionals' preferences have no connection to price; or otherwise put, the rating of wine has no relationship to its price. That doesn't mean that a particular expensive wine is not excpetional, only that on average, they are no "better" by any standard.

So buy the $18 wine! (Secretly, you'll like it better!)

I actually don't believe this at all. I read the research study, and it does not replicate the actual experience of wine tasting. I think if you did a more targeted test comparing a mass-produced Cupcake type wine, and a high-end California fruit bomb, you'd get different results. Also, wine appreciation is learned. I'm sure most regular people prefer Taylor Swift to opera, but that doesn't mean opera is "gross." Also, no true wine geek would ever claim the quality of a wine is directly correlated to its price, so this is really economics research, not research on wine per se.

Huh? You say you don't "believe" the study, but you say nothing that in any way undercuts its findings. Your "high-end California fruit bomb" wine might indeed score well with both groups, but that in no way negates the finding that on average higher priced wines were not rated more highly. And even experts were basically price-blind, so "learning wine appreciation" did not change the results.

I mean - to the extent the study is claiming (or interpreted as claiming) "all wine is the same - those wine snobs are just deluding themselves," I disagree. This study did not actually compare *comparable* wines based on price OR perceived quality. And, we don't even know how they selected the wines here. My guess is that if an expert selected the best wines in every price category, you would find more correlation between price and quality. Also, the research does not show the experts were price blind - there was some correlation - which matches to my real-world experience that there is a big difference between 2-buck chuck and the average $25+ bottle, once you get into the "good wine" category, price and quality do not directly correlate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the experts with their oh-so-sophisticated palates can't tell the difference either. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

That's a stupid study. A) they were students, not wine lovers or professionals and B) the names given to tasting notes are subjective, but tasting notes definitely are not. there actually is an objective wine aroma chart created by UC Davis researchers. The aromas in wine relate to specific organic compounds. This is pretty straight-forward sensory chemistrry. https://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/wine-topics/wine-educational-questions/davis-aroma-wheel/. The fact that people's description of the aromas varies based on whether they think it is red or white (other sensory information) does not mean that wine doesn't have specific aromas.

You don't appreciate wine. That's fine, but that doesn't mean nobody does. Similar to how I don't really GAF about poetry, but I know there's pedestrian and sophisticated poetry: Shel Silverstein is not the same as Sylvia Plath.

[Anonymous]

Best wine I've ever had is a $10 bottle of gewurztraminer. Fetzer baby!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best wine I've ever had is a $10 bottle of gewurztraminer. Fetzer baby!

PP wine lover here. I think there are much better values on the lower end in whites than reds, and the mass-produced stuff is less offensive to me. Not that hard to find a yummy bottle of dry Vinho Verde for $10-15. But, you're still missing out if you've never tried an aged white Burgundy or truly fine champagne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you just tasted some wine that you didn't like, which is totally fine! There is no single category of "expensive wines" -- you just had some wine you legitimately didn't like.

My DH is a HUGE wine nerd with a giant collection, and there are definitely wines that are not to my taste at all -- for example, I really hate wines that have "peppery" or "vegetal" notes, if not balanced with other elements. That said, there is a huge and noticeable quality difference between $10 wines and $50 wines and up. But I didn't know that until I had been with DH and he opened many bottles of wine for me.

Another huge tip: the wines that you didn't like were likely French or French-style wines that are not intended to be sipped alone. They are supposed to be enjoyed with food -- it makes the wine taste totally different. I don't mean you have to obsess about "wine pairing" food rules, but just that the wine is meant to be drunk with something rich -- steak, cheese, olives, etc. Next time you have an expensive bottle of wine, open it alone with some nice cheese or a beef stew! You might like it more.

If you still don't like French wine, cool, cool! There are plenty of really great American and especially Australian wines that are made to be better sipping alone -- the so-called "fruit bombs." Try walking into the wine store and saying "I want a California fruit bomb in the $25 - $50 range" and see what happens.

Another pretentious sounding thing that is true: a lot of expensive wines do have to breath or be decanted to have all their balanced flavors come out. And then after a while they can "close up" and not taste as good. So next time you open a fancy bottle, taste a little when you open it, wait 10-15 minutes, and taste again.

Finally, the problem I have with $10 wines is that they are manufactured with tons of artificial techniques and additives. So you're not really tasting "wine" but rather a "wine beverage" designed to suit American tastes -- sweet, super oaky, etc. Some of these can be ok (I actually don't mind Apothic Red!) but some are just disgusting to me now and undrinkable. As a PP said, if you go up to $20, you can find much nicer wines. That said, it's actually quite hard to find that good $20 wine!

Yeah, but I don't think this despicable practice is limited to the $10 wines. I see it in the $10-30 range as well. I read the book "cork Dork" by Bianca Bosker and it confirmed what I suspected that the California wine industry does engage in these practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you just tasted some wine that you didn't like, which is totally fine! There is no single category of "expensive wines" -- you just had some wine you legitimately didn't like.

My DH is a HUGE wine nerd with a giant collection, and there are definitely wines that are not to my taste at all -- for example, I really hate wines that have "peppery" or "vegetal" notes, if not balanced with other elements. That said, there is a huge and noticeable quality difference between $10 wines and $50 wines and up. But I didn't know that until I had been with DH and he opened many bottles of wine for me.

Another huge tip: the wines that you didn't like were likely French or French-style wines that are not intended to be sipped alone. They are supposed to be enjoyed with food -- it makes the wine taste totally different. I don't mean you have to obsess about "wine pairing" food rules, but just that the wine is meant to be drunk with something rich -- steak, cheese, olives, etc. Next time you have an expensive bottle of wine, open it alone with some nice cheese or a beef stew! You might like it more.

If you still don't like French wine, cool, cool! There are plenty of really great American and especially Australian wines that are made to be better sipping alone -- the so-called "fruit bombs." Try walking into the wine store and saying "I want a California fruit bomb in the $25 - $50 range" and see what happens.

Another pretentious sounding thing that is true: a lot of expensive wines do have to breath or be decanted to have all their balanced flavors come out. And then after a while they can "close up" and not taste as good. So next time you open a fancy bottle, taste a little when you open it, wait 10-15 minutes, and taste again.

Finally, the problem I have with $10 wines is that they are manufactured with tons of artificial techniques and additives. So you're not really tasting "wine" but rather a "wine beverage" designed to suit American tastes -- sweet, super oaky, etc. Some of these can be ok (I actually don't mind Apothic Red!) but some are just disgusting to me now and undrinkable. As a PP said, if you go up to $20, you can find much nicer wines. That said, it's actually quite hard to find that good $20 wine!

Yeah, but I don't think this despicable practice is limited to the $10 wines. I see it in the $10-30 range as well. I read the book "cork Dork" by Bianca Bosker and it confirmed what I suspected that the California wine industry does engage in these practices.

I love that book!
https://www.amazon.com/Cork-Dork-Wine-Fueled-Sommeliers-Scientists/dp/0143128094

[Anonymous]

$10 bottles: there are some gems that are actually really good. They won't age well, so don't bother cellaring them, they are meant to be enjoyed now. By and large, though, most $10 bottles are not great, so you have to hunt for the good ones.

$20 bottles: More consistently good. A good $20 bottle isn't necessarily better than a great $10 bottle, but the chances of finding something decent are much better in the $20 range, and on average they'll be much better that the cheaper versions.

$50 bottles: On their own, not necessarily better than the $20 bottles. (Some are, just not across the board). The big difference is depth, complexity, and cellaring power. Drinking a good $50 bottle of wine with the right food pairing will reveal hidden notes and subtle differences that really elevate the experience to a new level - but you have to be looking for those differences. If you're just using it to wash down your food, you won't notice or care.

This also gets into the range where wines can be aged, and develop even more depth and complexity over time, while also evening out the harsher notes. A $50-$100 bottle purchased 15 years ago and cellared properly, vs a $50-$100 bottle purchased today, is a world of difference. Of course the former will be much more expensive than that after its been aged.

Which leads to the last category: $300 or more (up to thousands). A $300 bottle that was $100 when new 20 years ago - probably amazing (assuming it actually was a good bottle to begin with, the right kind of wine for aging, and stored properly), but might taste like vinegar if not stored properly. A $300 bottle of a recent vintage should not be opened now - it needs age to reach its full potential. So I would be willing to spend $300 for a 15-20 year old vintage for a special occasion, but I would not buy a recent-year $300 bottle and open it right away.