Has anyone else seen John Cleese - Wine for the Confused (2004)
It’s a nice take on the pretentiousness of wine tasting. I haven’t seen it in a number of years, but IIRC he blind taste tests white and reds, and no one can tell the difference. Again, IIRC, his summary on wine is: If you like it, and it tastes good to you then its a good enough wine.
I have much more than a passing familiarity with science, thank you very much, and I have never seen a sommelier or wine reviewer masquerade as a scientist. Please provide a citation of an example.
An oenophile is just someone who is a wine enthusiast. They’re (we’re) not bogeymen, for crying out loud. If your enjoyment of wine is so fragile and easily damaged, I suggest you find another beverage.
I only talk about things I know and can confirm myself, but I’m certainly no sommelier. Anyone can detect something that is remarkably similar to tobacco in some wines (or any of the various other metaphors); that really is not BS at all.
Wine ratings are openly subjective, this is very well understood. What baffles me is that anyone thinks they’re meant to be objective. They’re not! I don’t know anyone who takes them that way, and I know a lot of wine enthusiasts! My tastes don’t always match up with the experts in wine or anything else. Neither do yours. So what?
You really think the entire wine industry and all of its tradition is nothing but a scam?
I’m not saying every wine writer or taster is 100% legit, far from it.
But there are real skills involved and a legitimate purpose to the occupation of a sommelier. No, they are not 100% reliable, because human senses are not 100% reliable, something that is true in every industry that relies on humans senses. Wine is not unique in that regard.
Of course you can learn to tell the difference with reasonabe accuracy; it’s not that hard. If Mr. Cleese cannot, that’s on him.
That’s absolutely a fair summary, with which I, as a wine enthusiast, am entirely in agreement.
There are expensive wines I do not like, and cheap wines I do. Sometimes I agree with the tasting notes or ratings, sometimes I don’t. This is not some sort of wild expose, is the ways things are when dealing with human senses.
No kidding, with a tag-a-long topic of video-philes and Monster Cables.
I suspect that wine tasting is a lot like dowsing for water or palm reading: the ‘experts’ actually believe that they do have some special skill/gift.
So are we all going to just ignore spudbucket’s attempt to actually read the study?
“subjects” does not equal a wine expert.
I realize that the wine haters in the room would love to stick it to the wine snobs, but the cited study makes no claim about the purported knowledge level of the test subjects. For all we know they are all people who prefer beer.
That a layman could be fooled by food coloring isn’t all that surprising. I think it is highly unlikely that a wine professional would be fooled by the experiment.
(I don’t drink wine, alcohol gives me headaches. They all taste the same to me… nasty.)
I think what bothers people isn’t that the ratings are subjective, but that they’re inconsistent. If a judge at the California State Fair Wine Competition, given 3 tastings of the same wine, from the same bottle, on the same day gives hugely different ratings then what value does their rating have? Enter enough competitions and, purely by luck, you’ll get a high rating/award to use in your marketing!
It seems utterly pointless to buy more expensive wines if the increased value/enjoyment of the wine is so hugely effected by external factors.
Another oenophile here to weigh in:
I’m surprised that no one has suggested that the red food coloring could affect the flavor of the wine. I would expect tasting notes of moths or chemicals. I do think a blindfolded test would be more scientific, as you’re not introducing anything to the wine which could (should to an expert!) change the flavor.
I don’t have a sophisticated palette, but I enjoy the process. I taste, then compare what I can taste with the notes provided. Sometimes, I find the tasting notes are right on. Blackberry? Yup! Green pepper? Yup (and ew)! Other times, I’m “Peach? Really??? What was that taster smoking?” I also enjoy how wine changes when you pair it with food (and how food changes when you pair it with wine). But that’s another thread.
As with most things, I take a live-and-let-live attitude. “If you like it, and it tastes good to you then its a good enough wine.” is right on. I would like to add “if you don’t care to - or can’t - detect subtle flavors, that’s OK, but don’t accuse those who do of being ‘scammers’.”
I guess haters gotta hate. News at 11.
In Modernist Cuisine, they did the red vs white experiment by serving the test wines in black glasses - no food coloring involved. But the conclusion they came to was that a taster’s vision had a significant impact on what they tasted.
Of course they are probably not welcome at wine tastings due to their avocation of boxed packaging and “hyper-decanting”.
Exactly. As with anything, there are people who have devoted to their lives to mastering a subject and I don’t think anyone has said in the thread that wine is an exception to that rule - or that they really don’t know a lot about wine as a result.
However, the wankery surrounding wine does raise more than a few eyebrows. To me, it almost seems like a centuries-old game of Mornington Crescent, where you’re either in on it or you’re not, and if you’re in on it, you can say whatever you like because the people who aren’t in on it have no way of disproving you.
I think you’d find a lot of wine makers and serious wine enthusiasts are supporters of boxed packaging, myself included. I’ve heard more than one extol the virtues of the box, which are many, over the traditional bottle and cork. Even screw tops are better in almost every way than traditional corks.
It’s actually the non- or mild-enthusiast, general market that keeps the corked bottles as the dominant packaging.
Go look again. A number of posters have posted such things as “wine tasting is pure bullshit!” with no qualifiers.
By the way, it’d be nice if friedo would learn to spell my SDMB handle correctly.
My initial post on this topic touched upon this, but then I just didn’t want to go in that direction, and deleted that part. But I agree. WhyTF do some people in this thread think they’re actually supposed to be “objective” in some way? Of course they’re subjective.
If you don’t gain any pleasure from drinking more expensive wine for whatever reason, by all means don’t drink it. “More expensive” does not necessarily mean tastes better to you.
There appear to be people in this very thread who are horrified or astounded that the ratings aren’t absolute, scientific measurements of wine value. Cost isn’t either. We do the best with what we have.
This is absolutely true.
And, even though I’m one of these people who doesn’t really care about wine ratings, I have to say, who gives a flying fuck? (ETA: This is not about your attitdue Knorf, but the opposing view.)If you don’t care about wine, fine. Don’t care about wine. Let the winos care about their own thing and speak their own language and code, and you find something else to give a shit about.
Same reason we “care” about audiophiles and homeopaths and creationists. Their views are laughable, so we laugh at them.
I don’t because I don’t care. And I think there’s more to wine tasting than homeopathy and creationism. But, regardless, they doin’t factor in my world, so why should I give a fuck?
No one said you have to. The joke’s on the rest of us, anyway. Decades of studies have shown them as frauds but they’re still in business. Almost makes me wish I had a lower ethical threshold.
I can tell a fair amount of taste difference in single bean coffees - back in the day I did the exotic coffee of the month from Gevalia before they went mass market and I really disliked some of them [a really carmel-y almost syrupy taste bothers me. I prefer a good crisp clear coffee with a light to medium roast]
Unless it is heavily chlorine-y or salty from water softeners that are set wrong, I drink tap water. Of course it isn’t as good as my deep well filtered by limestone and tested every year. But in general I find most potable tap water in the US to be palatable. I do have one of the filter bottles in case the water has an off taste.
For several years in the SCA brewers competitions here in the upper end of East Kingdom a friend consistently got rated 84/85 on his meads. I entered the exact same meads he did [identical bottles and labels] in one particular competition and rated the exact same bottles as 93/94 … the main judge had a thing against my friend and consistently would mark him low.
I had a favorite wine, a Chilean Cabernet that cost us something like $2.50 a bottle by the case. I really miss that wine. We lucked onto it at a wine case sale/tasting and bought 5 cases of it, last time we were able to find it. 
Indeed. Absolute unmitigated fraud.
I love how the wine defenders here are saying things like “sometimes I don’t agree with the notes observed by a taster but other times they are right on!” and things like “of course it’s subjective and not objective!”
We KNOW it’s subjective, that’s not the fucking point.
It’s been proven time and time again that what wine tasters see affect what they taste. This is not a point that anyone can argue about. It’s been demonstrated over and over and over again. And that’s what makes it bullshit.
You see an expensive label of a wine that carries notes of “leather” or “pine balls” or whatever, and so you taste those notes! You see a wine that has been dyed red and suddenly you taste notes of red wine, EVEN WHEN IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE RED DYE HAD NO SCENT OR FLAVOR IN INDEPENDENT TESTS.
And when you give the same damn wine to a judge 3 times in a row, and he tastes 3 different wines because that’s what you’ve told him, that’s bullshit. He’s tasting different flavors in his mind because if he doesn’t, well that would mean they were all the same wine, right? And they were!
I like wine well enough. And I am NOT saying all wine tastes the same, or that nobody could ever tell a Merlot from a Muscato, but come on. The game has been up for a long, LONG time. Wine tasting is bullshit to the extreme.
The tongue is capable of only identifying 4-5 flavors at a time. Which means when a wine critique starts giving a long list of flavors - ‘slight underlying aromas of bat farts, combined with a nice lingering smokey pig intestines aftertaste’, they’re not even trying to pretend their taking their job seriously; they’re doubling down on the bullshit factor.
Beer tasting is inherently a far more honest activity, mainly because there is far more consistency from batch to batch unless you’re working with very low-tech homebrew.
Unless you’re talking specifically about the mass-consumption US lagers, this is utter bollocks.
What? Exotic coffee and Gevalia don’t belong in the same sentence and it has always been a mass market brand. Perhaps they have tried to be something they are not in the USA, but that I don’t know anything about.
They also spam.