Why We Can't Tell Good Wine From Bad (2011)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why We Can't Tell Good Wine From Bad (2011)
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/#
85 comments
I think one of the points of the article is that the perceived 'goodness' of the wine comes from whether the wine is expensive or not. I don't remember where I read this, but packaging of a food product apparently has a non-trivial impact on the perceived taste.
I asked a sommelier in Paris once about what makes a good wine. She told me "A good wine is one whose taste you like".
I asked a sommelier in Paris once about what makes a good wine. She told me "A good wine is one whose taste you like".
>>A good wine is one whose taste you like".
Haha, indeed. I studied abroad in Italy, and one of my classes was a history and culture of food class, which included a day of wine tasting. I remember the "culture" part of that lesson was that Americans like their crazy expensive wine, simply because it is expensive, and fancy. Whereas Italy it is more generic, red or white, sweet or dry. Some go with red meat, others with fish. You go to the risterante, and pretty much get red or white "table wine", no expensive wine list or anything of the sort. The culture was not expensive fancy wine, just a good taste to compliment the flavors in your meal.
Now, I've put down a good bit of wine in my time, but nothing quite hits the sport for me like an $8 bottle of Chianti. I can tell a difference in brands too, and have my favorites, but the price per bottle for a great wine never seems to need to go above $10.
Haha, indeed. I studied abroad in Italy, and one of my classes was a history and culture of food class, which included a day of wine tasting. I remember the "culture" part of that lesson was that Americans like their crazy expensive wine, simply because it is expensive, and fancy. Whereas Italy it is more generic, red or white, sweet or dry. Some go with red meat, others with fish. You go to the risterante, and pretty much get red or white "table wine", no expensive wine list or anything of the sort. The culture was not expensive fancy wine, just a good taste to compliment the flavors in your meal.
Now, I've put down a good bit of wine in my time, but nothing quite hits the sport for me like an $8 bottle of Chianti. I can tell a difference in brands too, and have my favorites, but the price per bottle for a great wine never seems to need to go above $10.
Sweet or dry, maybe, but red and white taste the same in blind tests. (Not that there is anything wrong with wanting a color coordinated meal.)
I wouldn't say they taste the same - there's an overlap area with some where there would be confusion. But there will be whites that are simply not likely to be confused with reds, and vice versa.
Though if you handed a white wine from that overlap area and colored it to look like a red. I'm pretty sure all but the experienced blind tasters would just accept it as being a light red.
I am studying Enology at the moment, and have no doubt that I could be confused with the right wine. My pallet just isn't good enough. But having done enough bind tastings in the past I really feel like some wine types really do stand out enough to be recognized.
Though if you handed a white wine from that overlap area and colored it to look like a red. I'm pretty sure all but the experienced blind tasters would just accept it as being a light red.
I am studying Enology at the moment, and have no doubt that I could be confused with the right wine. My pallet just isn't good enough. But having done enough bind tastings in the past I really feel like some wine types really do stand out enough to be recognized.
Quite so. I had typed up as many or more words in a similar vein before abandoning them.
Wine is a subjective taste, just like all foods. There is no objective ranking of it. Don't worry about prestige or class or appearance of sophistication, find out what you enjoy and ignore all the baggage. I can't guarantee that I can reliably tell you anything about a wine just from tasting it, partly because I just don't care that much, but I can reliably tell you which wines I enjoy more than others.
Wine is a subjective taste, just like all foods. There is no objective ranking of it. Don't worry about prestige or class or appearance of sophistication, find out what you enjoy and ignore all the baggage. I can't guarantee that I can reliably tell you anything about a wine just from tasting it, partly because I just don't care that much, but I can reliably tell you which wines I enjoy more than others.
"Most people do choose to care about it simply because it serves as a reasonable filter and this combined with social proof can reduce the problem of choice with minimum effort."
This reminds me of the most obnoxious question I have been asked by a salesman (in this case at a high-end audio shop): "how much are you looking to spend?"
This question was so backwards to me that I didn't know how to respond. To me, each product is a cost/benefit value proposition. How much I'm willing to spend depends on how much the product offers.
This reminds me of the most obnoxious question I have been asked by a salesman (in this case at a high-end audio shop): "how much are you looking to spend?"
This question was so backwards to me that I didn't know how to respond. To me, each product is a cost/benefit value proposition. How much I'm willing to spend depends on how much the product offers.
The theory is that everything in stock is a great proposition, and you will get the best item in your budget. They aren't going to negotiate on price.
But the truth is that for every piece of home A/V gear that's expensive because it's well-engineered and provides a tangible benefit in exchange for its high price, there's any number of pieces of gimmicky, overpriced garbage which the salesman would be equally happy to send home with you. Need I mention Monster cables?
I imagine the first X covers cost of production, where cheapo brands cut corners to satisfy the quantity crowd. After that, you start to see price heavily affected by market segmentation, and availability. The small batch shop need to sell above a certain price.
At some point, it starts to mirror high fashion or art.
[deleted]
This may be true in the US but it's not true in Germany and Austria.
In Vienna, you can get a very tasty bottle of local white wine for $3, at any grocery store. Spend $10 and you'll have something amazing. It'll be fresh, crisp, and tasty. You can get giant jugs of wine for $15 or less, again local, again delicious. Maybe not what an expert would consider wonderful, but nothing like the sickly cheap whites you get in the US. (At least, all the ones I've tried.) In many restaurants in Austria, the house wine is the cheapest beverage other than tap water and single espresso.
The thing is wine is both a bigger industry, and a smaller industry, compared to the US. It seems like half the restaurants in Vienna have a house wine (and I don't just mean "their cheap brand" -- but house wine they, or their family, or their friends, make and sell).
There are practically infinite "brands" because making wine is such a tradition. And yet it's not super commercialized. Most of the time you go to a restaurant, you just order "white" or "red". With few exceptions, there's not the worshipping of the brand names or prices.
Heuriger are a kind of biergarten, but for wine; they make their own, that's all they serve to drink, and often you can dine among the grape vines that provide the grapes to make the wine you're drinking.
In the summer, you drink weissweing'spritzt… wine with soda water, with Almdudler (a local herbal soda), apple juice, or elderflower syrup and soda. You order the wine to the table by the liter (it's not coming in bottles), and you share with your friends. This would send a snobby wine aficionado into conniptions and I myself thought it was a bit sketchy at first, but damn, it's delicious (and fun - and cheap).
Every fall, sturm arrives in every lokale -- the fresh, immature wine. Suddenly everybody is selling it and everybody's drinking it (and everybody's got a raging headache the next day).
Wine is part of the cultural landscape there in a way that I've not seen anywhere in the US. Wine is practically like hot & cold running water in Austria -- practically a utility. It's omnipresent and, in true socialist fashion, cheap enough for everyone, all the time.
In Vienna, you can get a very tasty bottle of local white wine for $3, at any grocery store. Spend $10 and you'll have something amazing. It'll be fresh, crisp, and tasty. You can get giant jugs of wine for $15 or less, again local, again delicious. Maybe not what an expert would consider wonderful, but nothing like the sickly cheap whites you get in the US. (At least, all the ones I've tried.) In many restaurants in Austria, the house wine is the cheapest beverage other than tap water and single espresso.
The thing is wine is both a bigger industry, and a smaller industry, compared to the US. It seems like half the restaurants in Vienna have a house wine (and I don't just mean "their cheap brand" -- but house wine they, or their family, or their friends, make and sell).
There are practically infinite "brands" because making wine is such a tradition. And yet it's not super commercialized. Most of the time you go to a restaurant, you just order "white" or "red". With few exceptions, there's not the worshipping of the brand names or prices.
Heuriger are a kind of biergarten, but for wine; they make their own, that's all they serve to drink, and often you can dine among the grape vines that provide the grapes to make the wine you're drinking.
In the summer, you drink weissweing'spritzt… wine with soda water, with Almdudler (a local herbal soda), apple juice, or elderflower syrup and soda. You order the wine to the table by the liter (it's not coming in bottles), and you share with your friends. This would send a snobby wine aficionado into conniptions and I myself thought it was a bit sketchy at first, but damn, it's delicious (and fun - and cheap).
Every fall, sturm arrives in every lokale -- the fresh, immature wine. Suddenly everybody is selling it and everybody's drinking it (and everybody's got a raging headache the next day).
Wine is part of the cultural landscape there in a way that I've not seen anywhere in the US. Wine is practically like hot & cold running water in Austria -- practically a utility. It's omnipresent and, in true socialist fashion, cheap enough for everyone, all the time.
I can recognize good wine versus bad wine. The problem is expensive doesn't always equal good. Often the more expensive aged wine doesn't taste very good to someone who doesn't drink much wine because it's generally very dry.
There's also the matter of degrees. Going from the $1 bottle to the $10 bottle is a huge jump in quality and taste. Going from a good $10 bottle to the $50+ and the changes end up very subtle and not worth the money IMHO. I'm not a wine expert and when I had $1000 bottle before I felt it was mostly wasted on me since I have a hard time picking up on all of the subtle flavors.
The goal for all wine drinkers should be to find the least expensive bottle they enjoy drinking. I often come across these very nice bottles in the $7-$10 range that are great. The problem is as the word gets out their price goes up so I have to start the search over.
There's also the matter of degrees. Going from the $1 bottle to the $10 bottle is a huge jump in quality and taste. Going from a good $10 bottle to the $50+ and the changes end up very subtle and not worth the money IMHO. I'm not a wine expert and when I had $1000 bottle before I felt it was mostly wasted on me since I have a hard time picking up on all of the subtle flavors.
The goal for all wine drinkers should be to find the least expensive bottle they enjoy drinking. I often come across these very nice bottles in the $7-$10 range that are great. The problem is as the word gets out their price goes up so I have to start the search over.
I saw a very clear illustration of this at a blind whiskey tasting I attended recently. We tried a selection ranging from the standard cheapo stuff all the way up to one that as $150/bottle.
It turned out that the cheapest two whiskeys did tend to get rated the lowest - though interestingly enough most people rated the less popular brand markedly higher than the more popular one. Beyond that though, everything was all mixed. I didn't grind any numbers, but at a glance I didn't recognize any correlation between price and how well people rated it. There weren't even really any clear favorites; everyone had their own taste. The only really interesting thing there was that absolutely nobody had picked the $150 whiskey as their favorite.
It turned out that the cheapest two whiskeys did tend to get rated the lowest - though interestingly enough most people rated the less popular brand markedly higher than the more popular one. Beyond that though, everything was all mixed. I didn't grind any numbers, but at a glance I didn't recognize any correlation between price and how well people rated it. There weren't even really any clear favorites; everyone had their own taste. The only really interesting thing there was that absolutely nobody had picked the $150 whiskey as their favorite.
I remember Mythbusters doing something like this with vodka. An expert came in and IIRC they were able to rank the various vodkas very effectively.
For me vodka (and tequila for that matter) is similar to wine. The cheap stuff I can tell is cheap because it really does taste bad. Once you're into any of the premiums it is all mostly good so it's harder to tell the difference in price bands. I can almost always pick out Grey Goose though because it has a subtle sweetness vodkas like Kettle and Belvedere to not have.
For me vodka (and tequila for that matter) is similar to wine. The cheap stuff I can tell is cheap because it really does taste bad. Once you're into any of the premiums it is all mostly good so it's harder to tell the difference in price bands. I can almost always pick out Grey Goose though because it has a subtle sweetness vodkas like Kettle and Belvedere to not have.
Vodka's a bit different because what makes it good is being as close to nothing but alcohol and water as possible. That gives you as objective of a thing to look for as you're ever going to get in this sort of thing.
With whiskey, on the other hand, the picture's a bit muddier. There's a lot of different stuff that contributes to the flavor, which means there's a whole lot of room for stylistic variation and personal preference.
With whiskey, on the other hand, the picture's a bit muddier. There's a lot of different stuff that contributes to the flavor, which means there's a whole lot of room for stylistic variation and personal preference.
[deleted]
Thats interesting because I can definitely tell the difference between the ages of scotches and other whiskeys.
I also can't stand the taste of cheap whiskeys for anything other than mixing.
Were the people at the whiskey tasting regular whiskey drinkers? Just wondering because it took me awhile to appreciate a good aged whiskey.
I also can't stand the taste of cheap whiskeys for anything other than mixing.
Were the people at the whiskey tasting regular whiskey drinkers? Just wondering because it took me awhile to appreciate a good aged whiskey.
There were a lot of folks, so I'm sure the mix of whiskey experience varied.
For my part, it was my first blind tasting and it felt like a completely different experience to me. I was actually pretty surprised to find out how I rated certain ones relative to each other when I didn't know what I was drinking. One of the ones I rated the highest is one I wouldn't have given the time of day if I had had a chance to see the label before tasting it. I have to be honest with myself; I can only take that as a humbling reminder that all too often what we're tasting is a lot more than just the contents of the bottle.
For my part, it was my first blind tasting and it felt like a completely different experience to me. I was actually pretty surprised to find out how I rated certain ones relative to each other when I didn't know what I was drinking. One of the ones I rated the highest is one I wouldn't have given the time of day if I had had a chance to see the label before tasting it. I have to be honest with myself; I can only take that as a humbling reminder that all too often what we're tasting is a lot more than just the contents of the bottle.
And every wine 'expert' who read that will be totally confident that they can't be fooled so simply. Another part of the equation is the fiction we construct around ourselves to protect our ego.
Hey! I re-read it. The wine 'experts' tested were "undergraduates". Now I can legitimately suspect their research. Everybody knows freshmen are idiots. Especially freshmen flocking to a free wine-tasting.
See how easy that was? I can dismiss statistical significance with semantic juggling.
Hey! I re-read it. The wine 'experts' tested were "undergraduates". Now I can legitimately suspect their research. Everybody knows freshmen are idiots. Especially freshmen flocking to a free wine-tasting.
See how easy that was? I can dismiss statistical significance with semantic juggling.
They were freshmen studying wine and wine making.
I tried mightily when I was young to figure out how to be a wine connoisseur and appreciate the "finer" wines. All I was ever able to do was start to recognize the ones I liked.
Sideways be damned, one of my favorites is still the $9 Merlot with the kangaroo on the side.
What I did find enjoyable is that with quite a small amount of experience, you can learn to find your way around this little chart(1). You might not be able to taste the "expensiveness", but you can learn in relatively short order to identify different kinds of wine.
(1) http://winefolly.com/review/different-types-of-wine/
Sideways be damned, one of my favorites is still the $9 Merlot with the kangaroo on the side.
What I did find enjoyable is that with quite a small amount of experience, you can learn to find your way around this little chart(1). You might not be able to taste the "expensiveness", but you can learn in relatively short order to identify different kinds of wine.
(1) http://winefolly.com/review/different-types-of-wine/
he asked the experts to rate two different bottles of red wine. One was very expensive, the other was cheap. Again, he tricked them. This time he had put the cheap wine in both bottles.
Funny, these experiments never involve putting expensive wine in both bottles.
Funny, these experiments never involve putting expensive wine in both bottles.
Using the cheap wine for the experiment means the professor had to drink the good wine to empty the bottle. The worst part about this "experiment"? White vs red. You'd have to be fresh off the street to think they taste the same. This entire article is trash. These undergraduates are as much "wine experts" as 11 year olds are "education experts" just because they attend school every day.
> You'd have to be fresh off the street to think they taste the same.
... or have your senses fooled by false expectations. Have someone try it on you. I mentioned this article at work, and one of the more experienced wine drinkers in the office immediately went "oh, yes, I had someone fool me with that".
The thing is, even when we can taste the difference between two things when our expectations aren't being manipulated, a lot of that ability goes straight out the window when someone messes with our biases. Messing with peoples expectations about taste is one of those things childrens TV has been doing for decades for fun, because it's one of those things that always delights, and it's trivially easy to do.
In this case, give these same students a closed container and ask them to distinguish the red from the white wine, and I'd be very surprised if any of them had any problem.
What is being tested here is not their taste, but how taste can be overridden by expectations.
... or have your senses fooled by false expectations. Have someone try it on you. I mentioned this article at work, and one of the more experienced wine drinkers in the office immediately went "oh, yes, I had someone fool me with that".
The thing is, even when we can taste the difference between two things when our expectations aren't being manipulated, a lot of that ability goes straight out the window when someone messes with our biases. Messing with peoples expectations about taste is one of those things childrens TV has been doing for decades for fun, because it's one of those things that always delights, and it's trivially easy to do.
In this case, give these same students a closed container and ask them to distinguish the red from the white wine, and I'd be very surprised if any of them had any problem.
What is being tested here is not their taste, but how taste can be overridden by expectations.
Great final point; your explanation and mention of children TV shows casts a different perspective than the article author was able to do. I can see this working now, I just don't like the spin/focus on the price and taste of wine. This is more a study on the brain.
They were oenology undergraduates, which means they are actually neck-deep in studying and applying this stuff. They will have careers in this field, some as "experts". They may not be "experts" in the sense of having some celebrity pedigree, but that doesn't matter to me, since I think it's nonsense.
I once visited a place where they do very regularly tasting of a lot of food and beverages. When visiting, the director told us that they had once a blind tasting between red and white wine, and that was involving some fairly seasoned wine drinkers. They could not tell red from white apart.
I could not believe it, but I visited a winemaker recently in Burgundy, and asked the guy what he thought of this experiment. And he confirmed it, in a blind test, he and a lot of people can't distinguish red from white wine.
I could not believe it, but I visited a winemaker recently in Burgundy, and asked the guy what he thought of this experiment. And he confirmed it, in a blind test, he and a lot of people can't distinguish red from white wine.
what I find funny about this is that the reason I don't like most red wine and most regular tea is because I can taste the tannins.
I would find it sadly ironic if someone like me could pass the red vs white test simply because our taste buds are screwed up.
I would find it sadly ironic if someone like me could pass the red vs white test simply because our taste buds are screwed up.
re white vs red.
In the experiments with white vs red I've heard of, the tasters described the tinted wine with adjectives generally used with red wines.
It's all very subjective. Do they use "red wine" adjectives because the wine looks red or because of it's taste characteristics.
In the experiments with white vs red I've heard of, the tasters described the tinted wine with adjectives generally used with red wines.
It's all very subjective. Do they use "red wine" adjectives because the wine looks red or because of it's taste characteristics.
Okay, so here is the question... Why don't wine raters, the magazines and such, insist on blind testing?
They go to the vineyards, eat at selected restaurants, and literally make 'wining and dinning' part of the reviews.
They go to the vineyards, eat at selected restaurants, and literally make 'wining and dinning' part of the reviews.
Because that would reveal that the whole thing is a racket. They're all in on it.
More importantly, people shouldn't rely on what these wine raters say. This is their palate, not yours. And while it's a good 'nudge' to try one wine versus another, they are in no way the experts on your own tastebuds. I've been working on ways to map your palate and give you recommendations for this exact reason.
one of my favourite wines is cosino macul's don matias - a reserve cab that costs about $5000 pesos here (chile). they have a vineyard not far from us, that we take visitors to, so i feel it's kind of my "local". and it's an old, established family firm (although what that says in chile isn't necessarily so great).
anyway, they also have don luis, which is similar (and, confusingly, looks very similar), but not aged in oak, and so cheaper (say $3500). one day i was out shopping at the supermarket and saw don luis on offer. so i bought a bottle and, when i got home, cracked it open. it tasted pretty awesome. so awesome, in fact, that i decided to go buy some more.
but before i went out the door i took a second look at the bottle - somehow i had picked up a bottle of don matias (the more expensive reserve). oops. no surprise it tasted so good.
and that, for me, has always been the argument against the idea that you can't taste different wines [edit: more correctly, can't taste the difference between wines and, in this case at least, tell which is more expensive]. despite my expectations, thinking i was drinking a bottle of varietal, i recognised the better quality (or, at least, different taste) of the reserve.
now i'm no expert, and i can't recognise all wines, or the difference between many reserves and "super-reserves". but the difference between a plain and an oaked red (which, legally, is the difference between varietals and reserves in chile) is clear.
anyway, they also have don luis, which is similar (and, confusingly, looks very similar), but not aged in oak, and so cheaper (say $3500). one day i was out shopping at the supermarket and saw don luis on offer. so i bought a bottle and, when i got home, cracked it open. it tasted pretty awesome. so awesome, in fact, that i decided to go buy some more.
but before i went out the door i took a second look at the bottle - somehow i had picked up a bottle of don matias (the more expensive reserve). oops. no surprise it tasted so good.
and that, for me, has always been the argument against the idea that you can't taste different wines [edit: more correctly, can't taste the difference between wines and, in this case at least, tell which is more expensive]. despite my expectations, thinking i was drinking a bottle of varietal, i recognised the better quality (or, at least, different taste) of the reserve.
now i'm no expert, and i can't recognise all wines, or the difference between many reserves and "super-reserves". but the difference between a plain and an oaked red (which, legally, is the difference between varietals and reserves in chile) is clear.
How is that an argument against the idea that you can't taste different wines? It seems to me that in order to make the case you should have recognized that it was Don Matias without looking at the label. As far as I'm concerned you drank a bottle of cheaper wine and thought to yourself, "wow. This was tasty, much tastier than I expected. Instead of wasting money on the fancy label I should buy this from now on."
In case anyone is curious...
Those prices converted to USD are $10.54 and $7.41, respectively.
Those prices converted to USD are $10.54 and $7.41, respectively.
I don't think anyone has been claiming you can't notice the difference between wines, but that there is not consistent difference in taste based on price.
Furthermore, peoples taste is manipulated by expectation. That does not mean people are confused all the time. There are genuine differences. It is just that often the expectations can override them.
Note that you yourself, while you enjoyed the wine you thought was the cheaper variation, according to your own comment did not recognise the more expensive wine: You believed it was the cheaper wine until you saw the bottle, despite claiming at the end that the difference between these types "is clear".
If telling them apart is so easy, despite expectations, you should have noticed at the first sip of the bottle that it could not have been the varietal.
Furthermore, peoples taste is manipulated by expectation. That does not mean people are confused all the time. There are genuine differences. It is just that often the expectations can override them.
Note that you yourself, while you enjoyed the wine you thought was the cheaper variation, according to your own comment did not recognise the more expensive wine: You believed it was the cheaper wine until you saw the bottle, despite claiming at the end that the difference between these types "is clear".
If telling them apart is so easy, despite expectations, you should have noticed at the first sip of the bottle that it could not have been the varietal.
maybe i didn't explain very well. i tasted the varietal and thought it was amazing value for money - that it tasted like a reserve. when i looked again at the bottle "it all made sense" - it tasted like a reserve because it was a reserve.
if you are claiming that is significantly different from me thinking "oh, i'm an idiot, i must have bought the wrong bottle and this is the reserve" on tasting it then i don't know what to say. you seem to be splitting hairs - in either case what is important is that taste was sufficient to detect a more expensive wine.
a stronger argument, it seems to me, against what i am saying is that it is a single case. to that i can only add that i've not had the same experience going the other way. i have never tasted a reserve and thought "ugh, i have been screwed". reserves taste like reserves - the oak is obvious. and that means that there is a clear change in taste when the price increases from varietal to reserve.
again: i am not claiming you can taste all price differences. but this one is clear and legally enforced for chilean wines.
if you are claiming that is significantly different from me thinking "oh, i'm an idiot, i must have bought the wrong bottle and this is the reserve" on tasting it then i don't know what to say. you seem to be splitting hairs - in either case what is important is that taste was sufficient to detect a more expensive wine.
a stronger argument, it seems to me, against what i am saying is that it is a single case. to that i can only add that i've not had the same experience going the other way. i have never tasted a reserve and thought "ugh, i have been screwed". reserves taste like reserves - the oak is obvious. and that means that there is a clear change in taste when the price increases from varietal to reserve.
again: i am not claiming you can taste all price differences. but this one is clear and legally enforced for chilean wines.
Wine experts are in the same class as tarot readers and homeopaths if you ask me.
I'm not a wine expert, but I do know that wine experts are indeed out there and have to go through rigorous blind tests to earn accreditation. At highest levels you have to blind taste testing to be able to tell what kind of WATER droplets were mixed with different wines.
This didn't test wine experts, it tested undergraduates. We can extrapolate, but it's not as accurate.
I guess it is reasonable to assume that a wine making undergraduate has much knowledge about wine as I, as a regular wine drinker, might collect in my life. If they cannot tell, I wont get to a point where I would.
Definitely, but it doesn't mean that nobody can tell, either. I'm not sure if anyone can tell, but this article gives us no information one way or the other.
I would imagine that wine makers that worry over wine experts are the ones that want to win awards. The wine makers that want to sell wine care more of what the customers think.
I'm not a wine maker though, so I admit I could be wrong.
I'm not a wine maker though, so I admit I could be wrong.
Reading through this article it was easy to see that this was all bunk.
There's no way you can tell me that Pepsi and Coca-Cola pretty much taste the same.
The difference between the two is immense. I suspect that this person didn't obtain a sample of properly bottled Coca-Cola from Atlanta GA. Don't go for that canned stuff in cheap aluminum, if it's not in a glass bottle then you lose the subtle flavors of the syrup, as the metal changes it over time. Don't fall for that notion that other bottling plants produce a superior product because of the differences in local water. Every drinker that enjoys a good soda knows that the best location of water for Coca-Cola is where it was created.
Although, New Coke did indeed taste much the same as Pepsi, but that was a misguided attempt to market to a group of people that don't appreciate a fine soda. This was quickly stopped and shouldn't be mentioned again.
In fact, the only location that competes are those fine people south of the border who still insist on using sugar as opposed to corn syrup. I too enjoy a sugar Coke from time-to-time but nothing beats a bottle from the home plant.
I took the Pepsi Challenge back when it was offered and I don't recall seeing this M and Q business. The sodas were offered to me in plain, white cups. That day, I purposely chose Pepsi so that the young person behind the counter would feel good about their work, since they were employed by Pepsi.
There's no way you can tell me that Pepsi and Coca-Cola pretty much taste the same.
The difference between the two is immense. I suspect that this person didn't obtain a sample of properly bottled Coca-Cola from Atlanta GA. Don't go for that canned stuff in cheap aluminum, if it's not in a glass bottle then you lose the subtle flavors of the syrup, as the metal changes it over time. Don't fall for that notion that other bottling plants produce a superior product because of the differences in local water. Every drinker that enjoys a good soda knows that the best location of water for Coca-Cola is where it was created.
Although, New Coke did indeed taste much the same as Pepsi, but that was a misguided attempt to market to a group of people that don't appreciate a fine soda. This was quickly stopped and shouldn't be mentioned again.
In fact, the only location that competes are those fine people south of the border who still insist on using sugar as opposed to corn syrup. I too enjoy a sugar Coke from time-to-time but nothing beats a bottle from the home plant.
I took the Pepsi Challenge back when it was offered and I don't recall seeing this M and Q business. The sodas were offered to me in plain, white cups. That day, I purposely chose Pepsi so that the young person behind the counter would feel good about their work, since they were employed by Pepsi.
In India you get Coke and Pepsi in bottles. They use cane sugar, and indeed you can tell the difference between coke, pepsi and thumbs up. Simply put in order from the most acidic to most sweet it's almost like Thumbs Up, Coke, Pepsi. I couldn't tell, but I've tried multiple blind tests on my family and friends and they could. After a few times with them you indeed notice a taste difference.
Yes, Pepsi tends to taste more sweet than Coke. While Coke tends to be a bit more carbonated feeling in the mouth, if that makes sense.
If you never had it, New Coke was sweeter like Pepsi, from what I remember.
By the way, what's Thumbs Up? Local brand?
If you never had it, New Coke was sweeter like Pepsi, from what I remember.
By the way, what's Thumbs Up? Local brand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thums_Up
It was a local brand but was later bought over by Coke. Taste-wise, it's a less sweeter more fizzier, and a bit more acidic version of Coke.
It was a local brand but was later bought over by Coke. Taste-wise, it's a less sweeter more fizzier, and a bit more acidic version of Coke.
A friend of mine used to run blind themed wine tastings: Each of us would bring a Barolo, say. They'd go into numbered brown paper bags and we'd taste, make notes, rate, then reveal and taste some more. Typically these 8-10 wines would range from $25-$200/bottle, and other than the host we'd have no real idea of the selection until they'd been revealed. We'd typically intermix some suitable "matching" small plates so we could try the wines with and without food.
From a half dozen or so of these, my anecdotal conclusions: A good percentage of expensive wines are either very difficult to enjoy or flatly bad. On the other hand, the pre-reveal consensus winners for the night were very rarely bottles costing less than $40-50, and often were among the most expensive.
My guess is that if you asked two expert sommeliers to pair six wines with two six course meals, and gave one a budget of $200 for six bottles and another a budget of $1000, almost anyone with a passion for drinking fine wine could distinguish the more expensive wines and would enjoy them more.
From a half dozen or so of these, my anecdotal conclusions: A good percentage of expensive wines are either very difficult to enjoy or flatly bad. On the other hand, the pre-reveal consensus winners for the night were very rarely bottles costing less than $40-50, and often were among the most expensive.
My guess is that if you asked two expert sommeliers to pair six wines with two six course meals, and gave one a budget of $200 for six bottles and another a budget of $1000, almost anyone with a passion for drinking fine wine could distinguish the more expensive wines and would enjoy them more.
I was with him up till this:
>Vodka, for instance, has no flavor
Maybe not if you're doing shots, but on the rocks / straight definitely has flavors. Personally I dislike some expensive brands, and for the one that I like best I don't even like the branding.
>Vodka, for instance, has no flavor
Maybe not if you're doing shots, but on the rocks / straight definitely has flavors. Personally I dislike some expensive brands, and for the one that I like best I don't even like the branding.
I don't drink vodka but I'm curious.
Does it have flavors from the natural creation process or is it added in at some point? From the various flavor vodkas I've seen I've always assumed any flavor is added and not a part of the actual process.
Does it have flavors from the natural creation process or is it added in at some point? From the various flavor vodkas I've seen I've always assumed any flavor is added and not a part of the actual process.
Vodka can be made from grain, potatoes or even grapes and the distillation process is somewhat different among producers. I'm not saying the resulting flavor variation is huge, but after a while you start to notice it.
He probably did not express himself correctly. Good vodka is supposed to have a flavor as neutral as possible.
I have no doubt there are all kinds of "flavors" in your gallon jug of Popov.
Hey buddy, just because you don't get along well with vodka doesn't mean everyone else is a drunkard. Thanks
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) was an absolute shitfest. The critics gave it rave reviews. So was the book, and the critics gave that rave reviews.
I'm not sure how critical opinion shapes my evaluation of a film. (My decision of whether to go see it on the other hand, is so shaped; I generally won't go to see movies that have been universally shat on in the criticsphere.) Maybe I would have had less fun seeing TGWTDT had it not been so acclaimed?
I'm not sure how critical opinion shapes my evaluation of a film. (My decision of whether to go see it on the other hand, is so shaped; I generally won't go to see movies that have been universally shat on in the criticsphere.) Maybe I would have had less fun seeing TGWTDT had it not been so acclaimed?
If your not heavily into psychology but having a passing interest I can highly recommend the book "You are not so smart" http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1851689397/ref=as_li_qf_s... (aff link)
It is an excellent read and very eye opening
It is an excellent read and very eye opening
Agreed, the book has one section on how "fight or flight" is a myth. At least in regards to disasters, everyone needs to read up on that chapter at least. We are a delusional creature is all I can think of after that book.
Can you expand slightly? I don't understand what part of "fight or flight" could be mythical, and Googling doesn't seem to bring up anything relevant.
Fight or flight was probably wrong, and an example of how bad my own memory is. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
So the particular reference I'm alluding to is the Tenerife Disaster. During a crisis humans do not immediately do sane things to get out of danger. Basically when the KLM plane collided with the Pan Am plane the top of the aircraft was ripped off. There was ample time for people to get out and "abandon ship" if you will. But humans don't immediately react to disasters no matter how immediate without trying to process it and understand it. Most people sat in their chairs in a daze not fully realizing that the airplane is not a safe place any longer.
The people that sprang into action turned out to be the people that preplanned or at least had already planned "what would I do if things go bad?" and noticed, we've just gotten the roof torn off our plane, time to get out of dodge.
What it distills down to, is always have some sort of a plan to spring into action and know what you will do if you need to get out of the airplane alive. It seems like a small thing, but just planning, ok if I need to get off this plane for whatever reason, I am jumping over these people and running out the door to the left or whatever, turns out to possibly be the difference between life and death.
If we aren't prepared for it we try to process it as "the new normal" and that takes time. Exactly when it means life or death snap decisions. It is chapter 7 if you want to read it, but get the book, so much good stuff like why we have so much brand bias, why we can't trust our memory etc... and his references are great for further reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
So the particular reference I'm alluding to is the Tenerife Disaster. During a crisis humans do not immediately do sane things to get out of danger. Basically when the KLM plane collided with the Pan Am plane the top of the aircraft was ripped off. There was ample time for people to get out and "abandon ship" if you will. But humans don't immediately react to disasters no matter how immediate without trying to process it and understand it. Most people sat in their chairs in a daze not fully realizing that the airplane is not a safe place any longer.
The people that sprang into action turned out to be the people that preplanned or at least had already planned "what would I do if things go bad?" and noticed, we've just gotten the roof torn off our plane, time to get out of dodge.
What it distills down to, is always have some sort of a plan to spring into action and know what you will do if you need to get out of the airplane alive. It seems like a small thing, but just planning, ok if I need to get off this plane for whatever reason, I am jumping over these people and running out the door to the left or whatever, turns out to possibly be the difference between life and death.
If we aren't prepared for it we try to process it as "the new normal" and that takes time. Exactly when it means life or death snap decisions. It is chapter 7 if you want to read it, but get the book, so much good stuff like why we have so much brand bias, why we can't trust our memory etc... and his references are great for further reading.
[deleted]
Like many other folks here, I can tell good wine from bad too, in so much as I can tell wine I like from wine I don't like. Even better, I can usually find lots of wines I like that are under $12-10.
I even have regions I know have a higher probability of making wines I'll probably like.
But I've had some pleasant surprises. I don't typically like Virginia wines for example, but I was recently introduced to Virginia Chambourcin wines, most of which I've found great. Likewise I don't typically like most White wines, but the Viogniers from Virginia have typically been to my taste.
More importantly, over the last few years I've gotten to appreciate wines that I may not like on their own, but pair well with certain foods and round out the flavor profile, vs. wines I can just sit with and drink.
The truth is the difference between good and bad wine is not some pretentious expert's objective ranking, but whether you like it or not.
For the record, my three favorite wines at the moment are:
Penfolds Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet - Australia - $10
Cantina Zaccagnini Montepulciano d’Abruzzo - Italy - $12
Santa Rita Cabernet Reserva - Chile - $10
All go well with various foods or just by themselves. And yes I steer towards full-bodied reds.
But context can be just as important, I've also enjoyed cheap house wine while eating just as cheap food at local family eateries in Italy. I probably wouldn't buy that wine, but in that milieu it just "worked".
One rule of thumb I like to use when selecting from wines I don't know is that generally, a deeper punt (the indentation on the bottom of the bottle) on the bottle leads to wines I like better -- it's supposed to help with collecting sediment before pouring. But of course there's always exceptions. Excelsior (South Africa) makes some stupid cheap ($6-7) but pretty good wines with a twist off top and a shallow punt.
There are more "fashionable" wines I just don't like. I've yet to meet a California Pinot Noir I liked for example (the central wine in the movie Sideways).
Just try lots of wines, get a feel for the flavors, start to catalog which ones you like and don't like and you'll eventually develop your own taste. There's no shortage of wines to try, and there's thousands of under $10 bottles you can experiment with.
Just go with that and have fun.
I even have regions I know have a higher probability of making wines I'll probably like.
But I've had some pleasant surprises. I don't typically like Virginia wines for example, but I was recently introduced to Virginia Chambourcin wines, most of which I've found great. Likewise I don't typically like most White wines, but the Viogniers from Virginia have typically been to my taste.
More importantly, over the last few years I've gotten to appreciate wines that I may not like on their own, but pair well with certain foods and round out the flavor profile, vs. wines I can just sit with and drink.
The truth is the difference between good and bad wine is not some pretentious expert's objective ranking, but whether you like it or not.
For the record, my three favorite wines at the moment are:
Penfolds Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet - Australia - $10
Cantina Zaccagnini Montepulciano d’Abruzzo - Italy - $12
Santa Rita Cabernet Reserva - Chile - $10
All go well with various foods or just by themselves. And yes I steer towards full-bodied reds.
But context can be just as important, I've also enjoyed cheap house wine while eating just as cheap food at local family eateries in Italy. I probably wouldn't buy that wine, but in that milieu it just "worked".
One rule of thumb I like to use when selecting from wines I don't know is that generally, a deeper punt (the indentation on the bottom of the bottle) on the bottle leads to wines I like better -- it's supposed to help with collecting sediment before pouring. But of course there's always exceptions. Excelsior (South Africa) makes some stupid cheap ($6-7) but pretty good wines with a twist off top and a shallow punt.
There are more "fashionable" wines I just don't like. I've yet to meet a California Pinot Noir I liked for example (the central wine in the movie Sideways).
Just try lots of wines, get a feel for the flavors, start to catalog which ones you like and don't like and you'll eventually develop your own taste. There's no shortage of wines to try, and there's thousands of under $10 bottles you can experiment with.
Just go with that and have fun.
As a native Virginian, I can tell you we are proud of our Viogniers -- it's one of the kinds we do best!
Growing up in NoVA, I never really cared for the local wines, but I was always trying Cabs and the occasional white. Popular wines to the public, but just not very good to grow in the wet Virginia climate.
I don't typically like many whites, but I'm really blown away with Viogniers that grow here. They really are rather spectacular. For my money, I can't think of another white I've had anywhere with as wonderfully complex a flavor.
If you haven't tried them, Virginia Chambourcins are also really excellent for the most part and really well suited to the climate.
I don't typically like many whites, but I'm really blown away with Viogniers that grow here. They really are rather spectacular. For my money, I can't think of another white I've had anywhere with as wonderfully complex a flavor.
If you haven't tried them, Virginia Chambourcins are also really excellent for the most part and really well suited to the climate.
I can't tell $5 wine from $50 wine, but I can tell the difference between red and blue M&Ms blindfolded. Trailer park connoisseur.
Freakonomics did an interesting podcast on this, but the conclusion was essentially same: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/27/the-days-of-wine-and-...
*not sure if they referred to the same study or not, but it's possible
*not sure if they referred to the same study or not, but it's possible
Why Are All The Titles Capitalized Like This ?
Isn't it a matter of taste? Me and my partner know what types of grapes we like or don't like, and that tends to remain.
I do not think the argument is that you can not tell between grapes. Only between expensive and not. Also, it should be noted that you probably can tell between garbage and not. Just once you reach a good state, there is not much improving it. Evidence shows none, actually.
Similarly, I don't think anyone claims you can not tell the difference between tap water and bottled. Since, clearly, the local quality of tap water is very influential to this idea. However, differences between bottled waters is going to be just as crazy.
Similarly, I don't think anyone claims you can not tell the difference between tap water and bottled. Since, clearly, the local quality of tap water is very influential to this idea. However, differences between bottled waters is going to be just as crazy.
It is a book excerpt from 2011 - the actual book is very well written and documents a lot of cognitive biases.
Regarding the Pepsi / Coke test I'm a bit surprised... Apparently the letter 'M' and 'Q' were inducing people in error because people prefer M over Q.
But... From personal experience I can tell if coke is coming from a 20cl glass bottle (or a 33cl can) or a 25cl plastic bottle / 1 liter plastic bottle (tried with friends several times, they're always amazed). I can't differentiate 20cl glass from 33cl can and I can't differentiate small plastic from big plastic. But, simply, coke in plastic bottles doesn't have the "coke" taste. It just doesn't.
There's no way on earth you can make me drink Pepsi and I'll say it's coke. If often happen in restaurant: I ask if the coke they have is real coke. Typically people don't like but sometimes they do and serve me Pepsi. Than I get mean.
: )
But... From personal experience I can tell if coke is coming from a 20cl glass bottle (or a 33cl can) or a 25cl plastic bottle / 1 liter plastic bottle (tried with friends several times, they're always amazed). I can't differentiate 20cl glass from 33cl can and I can't differentiate small plastic from big plastic. But, simply, coke in plastic bottles doesn't have the "coke" taste. It just doesn't.
There's no way on earth you can make me drink Pepsi and I'll say it's coke. If often happen in restaurant: I ask if the coke they have is real coke. Typically people don't like but sometimes they do and serve me Pepsi. Than I get mean.
: )
Yes I can tell the difference between canned, glass and plastic bottled coke. Also Pepsi vs coke (pepsi is quite sour).
Wine on the other hand I find is just ego cock-waggling.
I prefer water to all, which tastes like shit in London, UK.
Wine on the other hand I find is just ego cock-waggling.
I prefer water to all, which tastes like shit in London, UK.
It's nearly impossible to tell good wine from bad wine instantly. A wine may seem very good but give you a terrible headache the next morning.
Every time I drink some wine and someone tells me it tastes good I answer: "let's wait tomorrow".
The only wine which I know ain't giving headaches is champagne (unless you really* abuse it).
Every time I drink some wine and someone tells me it tastes good I answer: "let's wait tomorrow".
The only wine which I know ain't giving headaches is champagne (unless you really* abuse it).
I always wonder about the 'good alcohol won't leave you hung over' theory.
I mean, if I'm drinking a Jack and Coke or a Jameson Rocks I'm probably at a concert or a dive bar, staying up late and having one too many drinks. Whereas if I'm drinking a high-end single-malt neat I'm probably at an upscale bar and I'm apt to maybe opt-out of that one last drink.
Additionally, a lot of people have bad memories of low end alcohols from college, when they're doing shots of cuervo, popov, or other low end alcohols in excess. Vodka, in particular, has very little differentiation between brands (it's pure grain alcohol). I'd really love to see a controlled study where a group of people drink a high-end and a low-end vodka and describe their hangovers the next day.
I mean, if I'm drinking a Jack and Coke or a Jameson Rocks I'm probably at a concert or a dive bar, staying up late and having one too many drinks. Whereas if I'm drinking a high-end single-malt neat I'm probably at an upscale bar and I'm apt to maybe opt-out of that one last drink.
Additionally, a lot of people have bad memories of low end alcohols from college, when they're doing shots of cuervo, popov, or other low end alcohols in excess. Vodka, in particular, has very little differentiation between brands (it's pure grain alcohol). I'd really love to see a controlled study where a group of people drink a high-end and a low-end vodka and describe their hangovers the next day.
It depends on the process. A more expensive spirit could use processes that uses less chemicals, but takes longer to filter.
Some wines are filtered using fining agents that contain gelatin, where some winemakers choose to use higher-micron (more expensive) filters. Or they use sanitation 'preservatives' like Velcorin. Any one of these processes could either trigger an allergy or add something that your body doesn't like processing.
The closest example is decaf coffee: how to strip out the caffeine. There is a chemical way (cheap but uses benzene) vs the swiss water process.
http://www.wisegeek.org/how-is-coffee-decaffeinated.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaffeination#Swiss_water_proc...
Some wines are filtered using fining agents that contain gelatin, where some winemakers choose to use higher-micron (more expensive) filters. Or they use sanitation 'preservatives' like Velcorin. Any one of these processes could either trigger an allergy or add something that your body doesn't like processing.
The closest example is decaf coffee: how to strip out the caffeine. There is a chemical way (cheap but uses benzene) vs the swiss water process.
http://www.wisegeek.org/how-is-coffee-decaffeinated.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaffeination#Swiss_water_proc...
So many people insisting that they can tell the difference between what they like and don't like. No one ever questioned this. It follows from the definition of "like".
The expectations game is played by pretty much every single product on the market, but it's only working if the product image is something you choose to care about. Most people do choose to care about it simply because it serves as a reasonable filter and this combined with social proof can reduce the problem of choice with minimum effort. People choose a certain "class" they want to represent and they just go along with whatever is on the menu for it.
But it's also important to notice that, while we all might be doing it to varying degrees, this does not necessarily apply to everything you do. If you can live with the stigma of forceful association to these classes, you can make decisions purely on the personal merits of a product, though that doesn't mean it's always worth the effort.
I live in one of the wine-themed states of Germany, close to France. A significant amount of our agriculture is wine, mostly from small family-based winemakers (oh the cliché). Everybody drinks a lot of wine, and there is an insane amount of variants to choose from. I know what I like when I taste it, but I know this applies to my personal taste only. Like the article says, it's not really possible to tell how expensive a wine is by tasting it. But that doesn't mean it all tastes the same. Wines are hugely diverse and everyone would be well-advised to just decide based on personal preference. However, high-profile wines are often designed to offend the least number of people, so they're an easy choice to serve when you're hosting a dinner - as a common denominator they do have a purpose.