Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
fwiw... even for experienced tasters it's hard to judge wine quality blind if you're comparing different grape varietals, or different regions. A pinot from Carneros should taste vastly different than one from Chambolle-Mussigny (France) or Piemonte (Italy) and that affects your preconceptions about what it should taste like before you even have a sip. In many ways, it's a prejudice because you expect certain wines to taste a certain way and you rely on a memory bank of flavors to call upon to put that bottle into context.
In that HuffPost article, to their credit they did compare apples with apples to a large extent, Cali cab vs. Sonoma cab, Cali chard vs. Napa chard. And 60% of the tasters did prefer the more expensive chard probably because of its more generous use of pricey toasty buttery oak which rounds out the sharp edges. But for the cab they liked the cheaper fruitier 2 buck Chuck. I can only guess and say that just based on cellartracker reviews, maybe Laurel Glen's Sonoma Mtn designation just isn't that great. I'm surprised they didn't choose a stalwart like Caymus's Napa Valley which is representative of the heady, fruit-forward lush style that's come to define Cali cab.
While pretty much anyone could develop a trained palate, most choose not to. It's really as simple as that.
For a starker look at tasting fail, just turn to coffee, where there price difference per cup is negligible between a bag of fresh roasted exceptionally sourced and processed coffee and a bag of pre-ground low-grown swill that was already stale last month. Yet an astoundingly large % of the population find it "pretentious" to aim for something better than Folgers or Seattle's Best. People like the taste of stale coffee as it's what they grew up with.
When I was 1st learning about wines, I'd always pick the most expensive...naively thinking it was the best.
A very wise wine steward told me.....If you like the wine, it doesn't matter how much it cost.
It's just as easy not to like a $100.00 bottle of wine as it it to love a $15.00 bottle.
If it's not pleasing to your palate...then it is a waste of $.
First, if you are not accustomed to a particular taste spectrum... like wine or coffee or gourmet marshmallow fluff, whatever... your preferences will tend to be kind of random. You might be like the guy I used to see at Ship's in LA, where they had toasters on the tables, and who would always burn his own toast. Always. When I asked him why, he said the taste reminded him of his mother. Hopefully, after you've had some opportunity to educate yourself, you might develop a more refined preference than that.
Second, absolutely go with what you like, and no apologies. But stay open to the fact that there might be something to learn.
Third, truly unbiased taste tests are devilishly hard to design. Even seasoned professional wine critics are not consistent in their judgments.
A taste test between two samples seems as simple as "this or that" but it is not. Matter of fact, it's something super-chef Nathan Myhrwold addressed by scientifically devising a bias-free comparison test of two wines... requiring a minimum of 10 judges (if you want good statistics), with three glasses apiece, labeled X, Y and Z.
Once the "triangle test" method had been proven, it turned out to be just as useful for judging spaghetti sauce, chocolate, all manner of foods and drinks with both strong and subtle taste differences.
First, if you are not accustomed to a particular taste spectrum... like wine or coffee or gourmet marshmallow fluff, whatever... your preferences will tend to be kind of random. Hopefully, after you've had some opportunity to educate yourself, you might develop a more refined preference than that.
Second, absolutely go with what you like, and no apologies. But stay open to the fact that there might be something to learn.
Agree completely. However, you can't force someone to 'stay open' to the possibility there's something better if they're convinced otherwise.
I've conducted a lot of coffee tastings over the years. It's funny what people believe - like 'shiny/oily' beans mean 'fresh' when it's exactly the opposite. I didn't bother much with trying to teach people who like really dark roasts. If one likes carbon, not much for me to work with there.
However, for the rest of the populace, seemed to me that people who like low-acid coffees like Sumatras tend to stay with those for the funky taste. But those who are open to exploring acidity generally appreciate being exposed to origins from all over and learn to appreciate the differences between countries and regions. It's the vast minority of the population, but certainly big enough to support all the microroasters out there, and it's growing.
I used to buy big, lush California cabs, but I rarely do these days. While it's tough to beat a really good one, there are so many other options to enjoy from different regions for a lot less. An off year at a 'famed' label might reduce the price by 20%, but that's still $60-$80 dollars per bottle, and at that point you really are paying for the label, not the wine.
There's no question that wine has a variety of tastes and aromas, some better than others. The issue that I have is justifying spending $60 or $80 for a bottle of wine, where spending a fraction of that would suit the palate just as well. Even if the more expensive wine was "better" it would only be marginally better than a lower cost option, thus not justifying the extra cost IMO.
of course I don't pretend to know all that much about wine, but I am with you. There are a few wines, really cheap and most boxed that I almost can't drink, if fact I can't but I certainly love a lot of those $10 a bottle ones. Our granddaughters husband is a scotch and wine expert: he probably could tell the difference...Heck, there are some wines under $10 that I find pretty darn good...And a few boxed wines, I am not talking the $10 a 5 liter box and certainly not Carlo Rossi or P Villa.
I do have my favorite varieties, but that is a totally different topic..I do think, those who think they have to spend $50 on a bottle might be considered wine snobs as much as educated wine drinkers. If you like it, drink it, $5 a bottle or $50.
My sweet spot for wine is around $15 to $20, and my price range is mostly driven by availability. I buy a lot of bordeaux, and you just can't get a quality bottle for less than $18ish (in Pennsylvania). Occasionally, I'll go as high as $40, because that's really the basement price for certain wines, such as Amarone, that I really enjoy.
For California wines I'm generally able to satisfy my tastes for around $15 with a quality Cabernet or Zinfandel.
I think there's a sharp drop off in quality below $10 and a sharp drop off in value above $40.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully, after you've had some opportunity to educate yourself, you might develop a more refined preference than that. 
