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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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 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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.