Drink Cheap Wine!

WINE TALK
1

The numbers in this Slate article are interesting:

2

There is a lot to disagree with in that article, particularly this:

You’re also likely aware of the piles of studies showing that you can’t reliably pick out expensive wines in a blind taste test. Many studies show that laymen actually prefer cheaper wines (PDF). Professional wine critics are quick to point out that they, unlike you and I, can distinguish between high- and low-cost bottles in blinded experiments. Here’s the question they can’t answer for you: So what? The only thing these “successes” prove is that a small group of people have gotten very good at sniffing out the traits that the wine industry thinks entitle them to more money.

If hints of cassis, subtle earthiness, and jammy notes don’t interest you, you are not a lesser person. Wine is not art. There’s no reason to believe that aligning your tastes with those of a self-appointed elite will enrich your life, or make you more insightful or sensitive. If wine critics want to spend lavishly on the wine they like, that’s great. Leave them to their fun. Be grateful that you can gain just as much pleasure, if not more, without bankrupting yourself.

I think I’d give the author this – to a lot of people for whom wine is merely an alcoholic beverage, like vodka cranberry juice, Bud Light, and margaritas, they very well might be better off buying $3 wine than $15-20 wine, because there is a good chance that (a) they wouldn’t be successful choosing the wines which are worth the additional money; and (b) they may not necessarily prefer the taste of the better / more expensive wine anyways. To anyone in that category, and I’m sure there are many, this might be good advice.

But the rest of it, the implication that wine enthusiasts are engaged in self-deception, the placebo effect of the price tag, and some kind of parlor-game to the extent they can discern the difference between a $3 wine and a good or great wine, I think it’s a bunch of reverse snobbery populist garbage. You could say the same thing about the difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari. I guess this guy would say that your only objective is to be transported from your house to the grocery store or your office, so the two are identical and why pay 1,000 times more for the Ferrari. But that premise only applies to some people, and not to all people.

3

This is what we get from Slate in the wake of Steinberger…

rest assured that cheap wine in the United States is good … modern technology has enabled them to crank out consistent wines, case after case. So, if you win your $3 gamble on the first bottle, you know you’ll like the next. And, in a sense, we have an advantage over Europe, since our discount offerings are usually a notch better. European bargain wines can be hit or miss, because they’re made by cooperatives that sometimes have outdated equipment, poor inventory management, and even substandard sanitation practices.

[smileyvault-ban.gif]

Ironically calling back the “value” thread - the problem I have with CA wines in that sub-$15 range, is you generally get industrially spoofilated garbage synthesized to taste like some prototype of something more expensive, as opposed to Europe where that sum seems to still buy a real wine.

4

Worst wine article ever.

5

+1

Anyone who uses Ernest Gallo as a source loses all credibility with me…

6

I agree totally. I am so sick of articles like this; nobody can select “good” wine; we are all morons* who only grade based on the price tag; some fool in a blind tasting awarded $2 Chuck or Yellow Tail a 98. Just pop that Gallo and get a buzz! [blahblah.gif]

I’m not rich; I have a limited wine budget. I simply cannot afford to delude myself that a wine is good simply because it has a big price tag. And if it is good and inexpensive, I will freely admit it: I was recently turned on to a $16 liter of Austrian Zweigelt which I absolutely loved. (Oh, that is $12 for a fifth; way overpriced according to Slate; I stand corrected.) [head-bang.gif]

*And I know there are morons (or are they simply shills?); at a wine tasting tonight the moron clerk told me I should keep an open mind if I don’t like syrupy throat-burners from Australia. “You should try Mollydooker!” and looked at me like I was a babbling idiot when I told him Mollydooker was the perfect example of why I don’t like Aussie wine.

7

[soap.gif]

8

[scratch.gif]

9

Numbers in the article I found interesting, even fascinating:

  • Wine consumption in the U.S. is about one bottle per month per capita.
  • Germans pay, on average, $1.79 for a bottle of wine.
  • In 1995, 59 percent of the wine purchased in the United States sold for less than $3 per bottle. By 2006, controlling for inflation, that share had dropped to 29 percent.
  • During the same time period, sales of over-$14 wine increased sevenfold.
10

You know, there were ALMOST a couple of good points in this twisted article. Almost. I’ve posted previously how the passionate Ed Madronich from Flat Rock Cellars here in Niagara had a similar experience to the Gallo 5 vs 10 cent wines with a $20 vs a $300 wine. Yes, we do taste with our eyes as this article and Ed both point out.

However, the end results of that experience is that it taught Ed to be passionate about making as good a wine as he can while still keeping it relatively affordable. It didn’t teach him to make bad cheap wine because people will and should buy it anyway.

The author also says we shouldn’t “subsidize” adventurous winemakers in regions such as Virginia. Well, if we go by his logic, why do large corporations making cheap formulaic commercial wine deserve it any more?

I get the gist of what he’s trying to say: those who prefer inexpensive mass made commercial wines shouldn’t be made to feel bad for their tastes and should possibly even congratulate themselves on wise economical purchases. I actually agree with that thought.

But to attack discriminating wine drinkers and lovers does not support that point as the author believes it does. There’s an implication that those of us who enjoy finer pricier wines have somehow insidiously sabotaged the entire wine industry and ruined it all for those who like inexpensive wines by deliberately choosing pricier wines to the detriment of everyone else as if we LIKE having to pay high prices for great wine. Believe me, I would LOVE to get a 2001 Chateau Yquem for $40, I swear I’m all over that one.

Also, don’t try to convince me that there isn’t a difference in quality overall between mass market wines and others. Having been turned on to Pinot Grigio by my family with an inexpensive Barefoot and then tasting an Alsace Pinot Gris for myself that made me an instant fan of Alsace wines, I can tell everyone for a fact that there is a definite difference between the $8.95 Barefoot and the $19 - 40 Alsaces.

Lastly, the author acts like we should all be shocked that the majority of consumers enjoy less expensive mass market wines. Really, who DIDN’T know that one?!? [scratch.gif] We Berserkers and quality wine lovers everywhere may not like that fact and lament it, but it’s not like we didn’t know it already.

11

I think the take away is to drink what you like and if it’s $3/bottle then you’re a lucky s.o.b. I bought a case of Boudreaux at $7/bottle and can’t find a tasting note anywhere on it, but it tastes good to me. Unfortunately this is the exception. I’m drinking a 2009 Big Vine PN now. Undrinkable. The finish is hideous and the bottle was $16 I believe. It’s hard to believe I can get a far superior RM or Copain PN for just $9 more.

12

The numbers are very interesting. Good to be occasionally reminded that our little group here is a tiny subset (that I would label “hobbyists”) of the entire wine market. Saying the bulk of the market simply has a “passing interest” in the product would be generous.

I think Chris’ paragraph below pretty much nails the gist of the article if you replace the words “to a lot of people” with “to the overwhelming majority of people”.

The rest of it hinges on tasting wines to determine relative cost, not relative quality. Cost is determined by a lot of things that have nothing to do with quality. If there was a consistent correlation between the two we, the hobbyists, would never comment on what remarkable QPR a wine possessed.

13

The line from the article that caught my attention was:

“If you and your significant other were to drink five bottles of wine a week, at $15 per bottle, your annual wine outlay would approach $4,000. That’s more than the average family spends on groceries.”

$75/week on groceries? Damn. I guess we need to start using more coupons, because our family of 4 isn’t anywhere close to that.

14

You know, if someone drinks 5 bottles of wine a week I’d say they should spend reasonable money to get something decent. They’re obviously making wine a pretty central part of their food and drink lives, so why drink $3 industrial crap when you can spend a bit more and get nice stuff. Hell, I get Muscadet for $11. Chateau d’Oupia ‘les heretiques’ for $11. I regularly see French and Italian wines for under $10. If you know you’re drinking that regularly, go to a store that offers a discount and get a case of this stuff and save another 10%. There’s a LOT out there under $20 and if you shop well and watch store specials, under $15, esp if you use those prices as the average bottle price.

Not that most of the Slate readers will use them, but hell, here’s a Chambers Street search page for wines under $12/bottle… http://www.chambersstwines.com/Browse.asp?categoryid=100003&browsetype=4&Price=1

15

my only nitpick here is the assertion that just by being French or Italian equals good. Not my experience at all. Gotta kiss as many european bargain frogs to find a prince as any other region.

16

Oh sure. I just know that you can find good wines from those regions in those price ranges and I know what to look for so I don’t usually hit the crappy wines much anymore. I don’t know the US wines in that range well, but if you want to I’m sure you can find equivalent values from WA, OR or Cali (or other states, but those will be harder to find generally).

Similarly, I’m sure you can find decent values from Oz, Argentina, etc.

PS: Again, a plug for your local wine shop. Go in, tell them you want some decent everyday drinking stuff under $X ($15 maybe) and buy 6 or 12 bottles. Try them, note what you like and what you don’t and what’s merely OK, go back and tell them that. I occasionally wander into McCarthy & Schiering on Queen Anne and tell them I need a few bottles of every day stuff… they know me well, so I walk out with some interesting stuff. Don’t just buy N cases of one wine (unless you really LOVE it)… experiment!

17

Two quick comments.

First, my girlfriend, before we started dating, was in the group of folks that liked to get a bottle of wine – in the mid to high 1 figure range to drink with dinner. She did this regularly and was perfectly happy with her wine choices. Now, some years into her relationship with me – wine geek that I am – she has found that she cannot enjoy many of the wines that she used to regularly enjoy because she has gotten used to drinking better wines with me (and my assorted wine geek friends). Several of her friends have also remarked upon similar feelings since I have become a regular source of wine for group dinners.

Second, I believe that there may be something to the difference in cheap wine made in the USA and that made elsewhere. Having just spent 2 weeks in Italy, and frequently drinking whatever the “house” wine was (for very few euros, and served from a carafe brought out from the back), I was almost never disappointed with the wines. Not impressed, mind you, but all of the wines were tasty, complimented the food, and I was, for the most part, perfectly happy to drink them as opposed to something more expensive.

18

that article frustrates me…

19

Yeah! Quit buying all that peanut butter and Wonder Bread and you’ll elevate your budget to $75 in no time. newhere

20

I am an audiophile and every once in a while some uninformed mainstream author or worse yet Consumer Reports, will come out with an article stating that “the human ear” cannot detect the sonic differences that many audiophiles perceive. While it is true that some of the perceptions cannot be measured with current electronic diagnostic gear, the differences do exist.

This is total crap and the purpose of these type of articles is to make the mainstream folks feel good about their low end purchases.