recotte -> RE: This is meant to be fun, albeit a bit catty. (12/8/2023 1:28:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blue Shorts quote:
In my opinion, most of these studies are flawed in various ways. Agree. I remember about 10 years ago, The Guardian had an article about a blind tasting with about 500 or 600 people. They compared cheap wines (which they had in the $3 - $5 dollar range) to expensive wines that they had in the $18 -$35 range. The tasting was flawed many ways. I don't consider wines in the $18 -$35 range as expensive. The article also seemed to imply that all expensive wines are of similar quality, which we all know is not true. And the participants weren't necessarily people that even drank wine. I remember when I first started drinking wine, I thought that Sutter Home White Zinfandel was great. [sm=lol.gif] While most on this forum wouldn't consider $18-$35 to be expensive, most of the general populace considers wine over $20 to be "high end." I believe the industry term for $20-$30 is "Super Premium." Setting that aside, putting a less expensive, "drink now" wine up against a more expensive "this really needs some bottle age" wine, there are a lot of people who will pick the cheaper option, just because it's easy drinking in the moment. One of the reasons why these comparisons are flawed. Edit: Notably, this was, of course, a complaint made by the French, leveled against the California wineries in the Judgment of Paris; the Bordeaux were too young, meant for age, and the Cali wines just showed better on the day.
|
|
|
|