IGX

At the Princeton tasting, led by George Taber, 9 wine judges from France, Belgium and the U.S. tasted French against New Jersey [TC: that's the New Jersey] wines. The French wines selected were from the same producers as in 1976 including names such as Chateau Mouton-Rothschild and Haut Brion, priced up to $650/bottle. New Jersey wines for the competition were submitted to an informal panel of judges, who then selected the wines for the competition. These judges were not eligible to taste wines at the final competition The results were similarly surprising. Although, the winner in each category was a French wine (Clos de Mouches for the whites and Mouton-Rothschild for the reds) NJ wines are at eye level. Three of the top four whites were from New Jersey. The best NJ red was ranked place 3. An amazing result given that the prices for NJ average at only 5% of the top French wines.

A statistical evaluation of the tasting, conducted by Princeton Professor Richard Quandt, further shows that the rank order of the wines was mostly insignificant. That is, if the wine judges repeated the tasting, the results would most likely be different. From a statistically viewpoint, most wines were undistinguishable. Only the best white and the lowest ranked red were significantly different from the others wines.

There was a third similarity to the Paris tasting. In Paris, after the identity of wines was revelared, Odette Kahn, editor of La revue Du Vin De France, demanded her score card back. Apparently, she was not happy with having rated American wines number one and two.

At the Princeton blind tasting, while both French judges preferred NJ red wines over the counterparts from Bordeaux. After disclosing the wines’ identity the French judges were surprised but did not complain.

WildGorillaMan wrote:Wine snobbery, much like audiophilia, often involves "demonstrating" your discerning tastes by spending lots of money, and then engaging in confirmation bias to reinforce your bad decisions.

Turdacious wrote:

From a statistically viewpoint...

The Crawdaddy wrote:Decent movie along this topic: Bottle shock iirc. Alan Rickman.

The perceptual ambiguity of wine helps explain why contextual influences--say, the look of a label, or the price tag on the bottle--can profoundly influence expert judgment. This was nicely demonstrated in a mischievous 2001 experiment led by Frédéric Brochet at the University of Bordeaux. In the first test, Brochet invited fifty-seven wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to describe red wines. One expert praised its "jamminess," while another enjoyed its "crushed red fruit."

The second test Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was summarized as being "agreeable," "woody," "complex," "balanced," and "rounded," while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table included "weak," "short," "light," "flat," and "faulty."

Schlegel wrote:Keep in mind they deliberately selected good wines to enter in the competition.

johno wrote:

Schlegel wrote:Keep in mind they deliberately selected good wines to enter in the competition.

Yes. The big news is that NJ's best is competitive with France's best.

powerlifter54 wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Most wine tastes like shit. The problem is, price is the usual indicator of a good wine. A very poor indicator, but the only one people usually have. Once a wine gets a reputation as a "good" wine the price goes through the roof.

However, there is this story:

2 Buck Chuck for the Win

I found out about 2 buck chuck while conversing with a French expat that was buying a 2 buck chuck by the case load at my local Trader Joes. He said he bought as much as he could out of fear Trader Joes would raise the price.

Abandoned by Wolves wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Most wine tastes like shit. The problem is, price is the usual indicator of a good wine. A very poor indicator, but the only one people usually have. Once a wine gets a reputation as a "good" wine the price goes through the roof.

However, there is this story:

2 Buck Chuck for the Win

I found out about 2 buck chuck while conversing with a French expat that was buying a 2 buck chuck by the case load at my local Trader Joes. He said he bought as much as he could out of fear Trader Joes would raise the price.

People in my city will go into Trader Joes, buy a bottle of a 2BC varietal, take it out to their car, and sample it right there. If it comes from a really good batch (2BC can be wildly variable), they'll go back into the store and buy that varietal by the case.

As a fellow who spent the last 5 years turning himself into a cook - having bought and read 200+ cookbooks, watched every episode of "Good Eats" several times - and then watched the various cooking competitions on Food Network and elsewhere... I can vouch that the human need to "snob it up" (once basic physical needs are met) is inevitable. Once you get past a certain level of care and quality, it's 80% marketing, perception, and presentation.

But that just makes it fun.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:The people who drink expensive wines are generally not the most knowledgeable about wine, even when they can afford the good stuff. People who know their shit, not surprisingly, look for value.
The most expensive wine I ever sold was a $1200 burgundy, to a table that was already drinking a $200 champagne.