Blake
Why It May Make Sense To Reach for the Cheaper Wine [Wine] - http://lifehacker.com/#!57923...
Another one of those silly "studies." I'd guess most people who aren't experienced beer drinkers either can't tell or don't care about the difference between Coors Light and any really good beer (otherwise, how come Coors & Bud sell so much?) I probably couldn't tell in a blind taste test which was a $50 Scotch and which was a $10 Scotch--which just means I shouldn't bother with Scotch, not that there are no differences. - Walt Crawford
[Actually, at least one Very Large Winery has made a fortune from the fact that most casual wine drinkers prefer a less complex Chardonnay with some sugar left in to a much more complex and interesting Chardonnay that's bone-dry. Also, price is a lousy differentiator for wine quality...] - Walt Crawford
Why is that a silly study for the BBC to do? It's not studying the quality of wine, it's studying how the average person perceives the taste of wine. I have a better experience driving a more expensive car than a cheap car, listening to a more expensive stereo than a cheap stereo, wearing more expensive shoes than cheap shoes, so it's reasonable to assume that I'll have a better experience with more expensive wine than cheap wine. This survey says that I probably shouldn't expect the same with wine. (I would think that there's a floor for this, though. The $75 bottle might not please me more than the $12 bottle, but I'm pretty sure the $12 bottle will be WAY better than the $4 bottle.) - Steele Lawman
(Oops, wasn't the BBC sponsoring the test, just reporting on it. Anyway, not groundbreaking research--an undergraduate economics group did a similar test here a few years back--but not objectionable.) - Steele Lawman
Sorry: The study wasn't silly, the reporting on it was. Actually, I'd argue with many of these assumptions--lots of expensive cars offer inferior driving experiences to cheaper ones (depending on your definition of driving experience), ditto stereos, ditto shoes...especially for the average person. A similar study would probably show that there's no point in paying for a $20 restaurant meal since most people will like McDonald's just as well or better. - Walt Crawford
Silly, in this case, really means "So?" -- and, actually, I'd guess lots of people won't find $12 wines to be better than Two Buck Chuck. In some cases, they'd be right--there are some really poor $12 wines. - Walt Crawford
Bottom line: As reported, it's a study without meaningful conclusions. That average people can't guess which wine is more expensive says, really, almost nothing. And it absolutely says nada about whether *you* should expect to get more by paying more. - Walt Crawford
Hmm. Might be a blog post here, although even that one's pretty obvious: There's no linear or direct correlation between price and obvious quality in most fields, especially to those not intimately knowledgeable with the field. - Walt Crawford
Well, I'd argue with that (obviously). Of course there is no linear correlation, but there is a probablistic correlation (if that's a real term) in that I'd argue that a $4,000 computer is likely to provide a better overall experience than a $800 computer, a $40,000 car is likely to be a better overall experience than the $12,000 car, the $500 stereo system is likely to sound better (or at least louder) than a $50 stereo boom box and so on. - Steele Lawman
Noting that the "test" reported involved differences of as little as 1.7:1 and apparently no more than 6:1 (if that), I'd still wonder about the correlations you suggest. I don't think they're all that likely, unless you define "overall experience" in a special manner. And here's the blog post: http://walt.lishost.org/2011... - Walt Crawford
Actually, "louder" is a special case, in which the $50 boom box might win--perceived loudness is sometimes a matter of audible distortion, and the boom box is likely to have a lot more distortion than the $500 system. (Stereophiles would assert that a $500 system is also crapola, that you need to spend at least $10K. I'm not a stereophile. The best sound I get is from a $120 combo of Sansa Fuze and Sennheiser headphones.) - Walt Crawford
I guess my only point in sharing this is oenophiles are all full of shit and it's all just subjective and people waste a stupid amount of time and money on spoiled grape juice. - Blake
Well, I'd argue with that too, Blake. :D I guess it's just that kind of day. - Steele Lawman
And damn, you write fast, Walt. - Steele Lawman
You never saw all those books and articles he has? - Blake
Steve: That's a variation of a post about "rational" economics--a term I think is wildly misapplied--that I've wanted to write for years now. Blake: I'd argue with that too, and I'm no oenophile. You could equally say that art-lovers are all full of shit, as appreciation of art is pretty much just subjective. Oh, as for "all those..."--nah. My set of publications only takes up about 4.5 27" shelves. And all the books still fit on one of those shelves. - Walt Crawford
Hmm. Now thinking about the "write fast" a little more. Maybe I should go write for Demand Media or whoever it is... My blessing and curse is that my first drafts, which do indeed emerge rapidly sometimes, are mostly coherent...and that my own attempts to edit the hell out of them rarely yield huge improvements. 99% of my blog posts are as edited as my FF comments, that is, not at all. - Walt Crawford
Oh, and that typing class in junior high school was the most valuable portion of my education on a per-hour basis, EVER. 80WPM corrected, FTW. - Walt Crawford
Psst, Blake: I'm planning to use your "oenophiles are..." comment in a "My Back Pages" segment devoted to leveling and differences in what matters to people. If you hate that idea, let me know. Of course, only PDF C&I readers even see My Back Pages, by design. - Walt Crawford
make sure SHIT is in all CAPS - Blake
due to a glut of grapes - Meg VMeg