Drink Cheap Wine | Hacker News Reader

Drink Cheap Wine

slate.com

47 pointsprostoalex75 comments

This article is the contrary of everything I believe about wine :-) In Italy with 15 euro a bottle you can purchase one of the Italian Great Wines, not an everyday wine, like a bottle of Siant Michel Appian or similar very very good wine. What starts to be blurry is what you get with a 150 euro bottle compared to a 20 euro bottle... But in the 10-15 range there are awesome wines that you don't find if you descend in the 5-7 euro range, for example. Around 7-10 you can still, if you have the skills and drive, find good wines, but in the same range there is also garbage. Now, does it make sense to drink garbage? If you ask me, never in your life. So I drink 10-20 euros wins at home, alone, if I want to drink wine. Don't drink cheap wine, nor bad coffe, or trash food. Drink and eat less maybe, which is going to work for your health. Life is too short.

I agree. Once you develop a taste for wine the difference between a cheap bottle and $10-$15 bottle is noticeable. Perhaps I drink too much wine.

Totally agree with you, didn't know you were also a wine fan. In Italy I would drink "Andrea Occhipinti" and other natural radical stuff all day long... here in the states their bottles are around 25 USD, but in Italy they are way cheaper, and the work of artists.

French wine can be found among the same lines, just have to check less 'popcorn' regions, like Jura, Beaujolais, Loire and Languedoc.

In short, the price of a wine, is not correlated to it's quality most of the time. Like the cover of a book is not correlated with what's written in it. The most exciting wines being made today, the most radical guys, in search of true terroir, are making wines that are not that expensive.

PS: Gallo's wines are shit, avoid those chemical bombs.

Totally agree with you, since you mentioned Occhipinti, there is another Occhipinti in Sicily making natural wines which is worth to check, "Arianna Occhipinti": http://www.agricolaocchipinti.it/ (sorry terrible site). I've mixed feelings about natural wines since they are of very mixed quality... but those ones are fine IMHO.

Hahaha, I quickly googled for Occhipinti and found Andrea. I totally meant Arianna! Super nice stuff. A beautiful italian wine in a similar style is "Vino di Anna, Palmento", give that one a try if you can, also natura. :)

Cheers!!

Doesn't all red wine taste the same if you combine it with cola? :-)

> in the 10-15 range there are awesome wines that you don't find if you descend in the 5-7 euro range

I'd second this, and say that the most interesting and various wines can be found around the 15 euro mark.

In Australia (Where red wine snobs like myself abound) the best local wines are usually around the $20 mark. You can pay hundreds of dollars for Grange, but if you're going to spend that money I'd prefer to go for something like the Wild Duck Creek Duck Muck (Awesome wine, way too expensive).

My current favorite is actually the Artigiano Primitivo from Puglia in Italy. $17 at the local bottle shop, and absolutely brilliant :-)

For those interested in Californian Zinfandels I'd highly recommend looking into Primitivos:

"In 1993, Meredith used a DNA fingerprinting technique to confirm that Primitivo and Zinfandel are clones of the same variety. Comparative field trials have found that "Primitivo selections were generally superior to those of Zinfandel, having earlier fruit maturity, similar or higher yield, and similar or lower bunch rot susceptibility.""

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinfandel#Relationship_to_Primi...

Thanks for the hints!

As a fellow Italian, I agree wholeheartedly (even though a Great Wine is probably more toward 40-50€ imho).

But Italy is a privileged place to buy wine.

Living in London, I noticed that cheap wines (5-10£) are truly awful and it's almost impossible to find good cheap wines. Also, European wines tend to be worse than African and South American ones (no idea why: maybe Italians keep the good stuff only for them?).

The author claims that being able to distinguish expensive wines from cheap ones simply means that a person has developed an arbitrary preference drive by the wine industry. They article even explicitly states "wine is not art".

I don't buy this at all. Almost everyone can relate to some field where they have more sophisticated tastes than the average person, whether it's music, art, food or wine (EDIT: how could I forget coffee). By the author's logic, we should all eat McDonalds or Panda Express.

I'm not claiming that expensive wine is objectively better, but rather that people with experience and knowledge have a different taste to the average person, and this difference isn't just arbitrary, but reflects a deeper understanding and appreciation.

Ah. Nuance, critical thought. Appreciation for subtle, yet important considerations for a subject that people devote their lives to. Not often one sees that here, and I thank you.

I've often heard that blind taste tests contradict these claims in the extreme ($30 bottle vs $100 bottle for example). Are there blind taste tests among any group that back up such a claim? Or are we just knocking out the truly cheap bottles?

I was told by a man who professionally tested wines around the world that I should generally not spend more than $20 a bottle, and I'm often happy with $15.

I was going by the article here, which didn't say what the price range being distinguished was, and didn't cite any studies. I was more concerned with the logic that (even provably) refined tastes just reflected an arbitrary preference for the qualities of expensive wine.

Perhaps this is right - and I don't professionally taste wine, so your man should know better than I do - but from my own experience of sometimes drinking very good and very expensive wine, there really is a demonstrably worthwhile difference! My father, a lawyer, was once paid by a client with a case of good Château Margaux, including some excellent years ('82 and '85 in particular); we've drunk these together slowly over time, on special occasions for the most part, and they really have been phenomenal. I don't know what you could buy for $20 that would in any way compare with those bottles (which probably would sell for 20x that amount, if not more).

But, as they say in Latin, de gustibus non est disputandum. My mother and my wife detest the Margaux that my father and I enjoy so much - my mother charitably calling it "a man's wine" and my wife calling it... something much less charitable. But I think both of them would agree that it is certainly very different - in taste, colour, and bouquet, even if they can't actually enjoy those aspects of it - to what you could buy in a supermarket.

. By the author's logic, we should all eat McDonalds or Panda Express.

There are other reasons not to eat junk food. Drinking wine that you like that also happens to be chap isn't necessarily bad for your health. Seriously, how did this comment end up on top?

Top rated comments tend to engage in a deep way with the matter at hand, and not some superficial side issue.

My point wasn't related to health, but to the aesthetic qualities of the food itself. I don't think Panda Express is very unhealthy, and no more/less healthy than good Chinese food.

The weird thing with wines is there's no consensus in blind tastings as to what constitutes a superior wine. Judges' ratings end up all over the map. With teas in the North American Tea Championship, which employs blind cupping, there is consistent consensus in that certain brands (usually smaller, not Lipton) beat out other brands by large margins by judges who agree. How does wine end up being so impenetrable that connoisseurship confers such inconsistent evaluations? Can we even discern a "deeper understanding" if that means liking/disliking wines at random? I mean what if a movie critic placed 2001: A Space Odyssey in the same league as Backdoor Sluts 9? We'd conclude rightly he's full of shit.

I think what we're really running into are the egos of oenophiles.

I'm not very familiar with the literature. I found a Guardian article[0] citing a number of studies that "debunked" wine tasting. But the studies didn't seem conclusive to me. I'm wary of both connoisseurs and academics, as both have psychological and monetary incentives to exaggerate how exact their knowledge is.

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tas...

I'm as committed a rationalist as they come, and am the first to call bullshit when it comes to professional bullshit artists wanking over the "personality" of an $80 bottle of wine. Most of my time spent at tasting rooms consists of mentally rolling my eyes at the conversations I'm overhearing. So, as a self-identified wine skeptic who just really happens to like wine, I've gotta admit: there is a huge difference between a good $15-$18 bottle of wine and a good $5-$7 bottle of wine. To me. My spouse and I have even played "guess the bottle" in this price range, and believe me it's not as hard as you'd think. My tastes have, annoyingly, elevated over the years--annoying because $18 nightly bottles are out my budget. It's as though I crossed some sort of wine rubicon. I would agree with the point you are making at a higher price range, but mere mortals really can appreciate spending an extra $10 on a cheap bottle of wine, I claim. I'll say one thing though--the author is spot on about how much cheaper good wine is in Europe. Trying to buy wine at a Carrefour in Valencia last summer, we searched high and low for anything in our "splurge range" (~15 euros) before realizing that maybe the fact that 90% of the shelf was priced at a third that was trying to tell us something.

I think the problem with most blind tastings is they are done as part of huge tasting events. Personally if I taste more than 4 or 5 wines at at time my palate gets "tired" and my opinion of the wine becomes very different to what I think of it after tasting it on its own.

This is a problem when you go to a wine event and try a whole bunch of different wines and decide to buy a couple of cases of the 9th or 10th wine you tasted. I will no longer buy wine after more than 5 tastings because I don't trust my judgement anymore. I really have no idea how any judge can taste 80 wines in a day and pick anything good.

you need to spit it and eat in between (preferably amidon laden stuff) to keep sharp taste buds connected to a clear mind. Especially if you are going to commit to a couple of cases.

I have tried this and it helps, but I really don't trust my palate's judgment after tasting too many wines as once.

Talking about palate destroying I once bought a wine (mid priced) that had such a terrible taste that I instantly rang to the sink to spit it out. The truly diabolic thing about this wine is it made any wine tasted for hours after this taste terrible as well (I opened 4 different wines I knew well over 3 hours as I could not believe such an effect was possible). No food or any drink could get rid of the effect. I always thought this would be the perfect wine to enter into a tasting competition.

    > means that a person has developed an arbitrary
    > preference drive by the wine industry ... I don't buy
    > this at all

You should talk to a wine expert then, who'll happily tell you that different grapes come in to and out of fashion, and hence are priced differently. Riesling as a great example of a great grape that's "underpriced" because it's not so fashionable.

You should talk to a logic expert. Luckily I am one :^) Just because there is some element of faddishness, doesn't mean that something is entirely arbitrary. E.g. sushi used to be mostly white fish, and salmon was considered too greasy. It doesn't follow from that there is no good or bad sushi.

A logic expert eh?

May I suggest that concluding that there is significant difference between wine based on the price, despite scientific evidence to contrary, because another class of items does show a value/price relationship is a nice example of:

* Appeal to probability

* Argument from (personal) incredulity

* False equivalence

And I'm sure a few others.

I don't think the author would disagree with much of your post.

I did not understand the point to be that wine critics are frauds – it's that they're playing a game that someone lacking the "deeper understanding and appreciation" simply doesn't have to participate in by buying expensive wine.

As you rightly say this applies equally to all areas of taste, but wine is a good one to call out because people seem to feel a bit bad about knowing nothing and overspend to be on the safe side.

From a statistical analysis of wine competitions, found at http://www.letastevin.org/Hodgson%202009%20Analysis%20of%20c... :

"An examination of the results of 13 U.S. wine competitions shows that (1) there is almost no consensus among the 13 wine competitions regarding wine quality, (2) for wines receiving a Gold medal in one or more competitions, it is very likely that the same wine received no award at another, (3) the likelihood of receiving a Gold medal can be statistically explained by chance alone."

I'm not a 'wine person', so don't find this issue interesting. Different people, even 'expert judges', have different subjective experiences for a variety of reasons. Even if 'greater enjoyment' is simply a product of cognitive bias, the reasons are largely irrelevant. The relevant part is that they do enjoy it more, even if others might consider the reason 'irrational'.

I think this issue only becomes interesting (and objective facts important) if there's some ethical line being crossed (like wilful misleading conduct by the producer e.g. monster cables).

As a connoisseur of cheap red wine (about 5 bottles a week split much like mentioned in the article), as well as an occasional drinker of fine red Napa wines, I'd like to argue that one should try the suggestion, however there are two key caveats.

Much like most things in life, there are plenty of bad cheap wines just like there are acceptable or even good cheap wines.

Which leads nicely to the second point: find a few wines that you like and enjoy them. Everybody has different tastes and there are so many varietals and vintners that it's really impossible to say one trumps another in all respects.

That said, there are still some key differences that will affect taste of wine that can drive up the cost, such as barrel aging in fine oak barrels, and if you enjoy the taste that imparts then you are naturally going to be paying more for your wine no matter who bottles it (same for organic wine, fair trade, some varietals and special vintages, etc.)

More info on that breakdown in price is available here: http://winefolly.com/tutorial/truth-cheap-vs-expensive-wine/ and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/dining/why-wine-costs-what...

Just don't let anyone tell you what wine to drink, discover it for yourself!

Have you done any blind tastings?

Yes actually! They're fun, have done one in EU and here in California. I'm not a wine judge though, just a consumer. To further my point above, I found that there were good wines from all price points. It's all about finding what you love and enjoying it.

"If hints of cassis, subtle earthiness, and jammy notes don’t interest you, you are not a lesser person. "

Here's a nice tip: Buy cheap wine and crème de cassis. Crème de cassis is an intensely flavored liquer made from blackcurrants (and loads of sugar). One of it's original uses was as a "condiment" for cheap wine. Some cafes used to put it out so customers could add it to their wine if they didn't like the wine. Today, the mixture of Cassis and white wine is called Kir, which is one of the most popular cocktails in France. A little cassis makes a good wine better, and a lot makes even a terrible wine possible to drink.

You might find it interesting that crème de cassis is the top mixer in Japan. Nearly every bar and drinking place serves crème de cassis and orange juice as well as crème de cassis and oolong tea. Both are great and I'm a little surprised crème de cassis is so rare in the USA. Many bars have a bottle but it is rarely used.

Yeah, it's weird how unpopular it is in North America, except for Quebec. Quebec even produces the stuff, but good luck finding Quebecois crème de cassis (which is damned good) in Western Canada.

Warning: crème de cassis does go off if it's on the shelf for long enough. It doesn't get better with age. Try to buy it from a place where the bottles don't have too much dust on them.

"Cider and black" or "snakebite and black" (lager, cider, "black") are popular drink with teenagers and students in Britain, but the black is blackcurrant syrup.

Relatively recently, the large drinks companies have started selling cider and fruit flavours premixed in bottles.

This argument can be extended to any luxury good - why buy a Porsche when a VW will get you there? Why buy a silk sweater when you've a perfectly serviceable woollen hand-me-down?

Obviously these things are not equivalent. The car you buy, the sweater you wear, and the wine you drink are a few of the many little things that make a person who they are - in a sense, they're the distinctions that comprise the very essence of culture. What is a person (when viewed through another's eyes) if not the product of the decisions they make? And what is knowing someone, if not having an understanding of how they reach their decisions?

Not all wine is created equal - that's just true. Like food, code, art, music, and math, it's a thing that becomes more appreciable with knowledge. A lot of people would be just as impressed by a+b=c as they would be by Euler's identity, the Zeta function, or e=mc^2: normal people don't go around talking about the beauty of math, and yet those that know about it are captivated by it. It's the same story with Lispers and "Maxwell's equations of software". Are they deluded? No. Is it completely subjective and worthless? No - there is real, objective awesomeness in these examples.

Wine is not math or Lisp, but it's also not 100% bullshit (probably more like 60%.) This article is just another "please be like me" appeal, and they're getting dull now. There's potentially a lot of joy to be had by liberating your tastebuds from the likes of Gallo. $5/btl wine is not great stuff - it was probably a grape less than a month ago, and when you take into account vineyard margin, distributor margin, retail margin, the bottle, labelling, taxes, and shipping, you find the actual liquid in the bottle was created for pennies. It's treated with additives, flavourings, and sugar to make it both palatable and consistent: the grape is but a substrate. Like pink slime. $5/btl wine is the 1990's McNugget of the booze world. Each and every bottle is a shrine to engineered mediocrity.

I agree with everything you said, except that in some countries like France, wine is -by definition- not a luxury good. And I would dare to say, that culturally is not treated like that either.

In other places, like my country of origin Chile, wine is actually legally a luxury good. It has a luxury good tax, and it's culturally viewed as a luxury good by most of the Chilean society.

I would like wine to be a closer thing for people in my Country and here in the States. Like a good book that your local bookstore could suggest you to read could change your life. A good wine, recommended by your local -serious- cavista could change your life too.

In a society that's pretty much immersed in Fast Food and Soda, this would be like a refreshing breeze of cool air :)

> A good wine, recommended by your local -serious- cavista could change your life too.

Which did it for you?

My adventure with wine got serious when I actually noticed that I had been drinking crap. I was fortunate to try a Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 1990 like 6 years ago. That wine is from Bordeaux, and even if I don't drink Bordeaux actively anymore, it marked my life.

There are a lot of wines that have marked me and my taste, and most of them are not expensive.

-> Louis Antoine Luyt "País de Quenehuao" got me into natural wine. (10 bucks in Chile)

-> Domaine Ostertag "Riesling" Got me into white wine. (~20 bucks?)

-> Kenjiro Kagami "Poulsard" Domaine De Miroirs, showed me how edgy and how much tension a wine could have. (maybe 30 bucks)

I could elaborate for hours, like good books, a lot of wines that I tasted are memories that I hold deeply in my heart.

I was also lucky enough to meet a great group of people who helped me to shape my own taste, suggest new exciting stuff or even share great bottles with me...

The vast majority of people shouldn't even consider buying a new car, let alone a Porsche: a cheap, used car that costs a few thousand dollars is all they should be able to afford without vastly overextending themselves on their incomes.

>Europeans seem perfectly comfortable cracking open a 1-euro tetra-pak of wine for guests. Germans, for example, pay just $1.79 on average for a bottle of wine.

I stopped reading here, b/c that's simply not correct. It's true that most people don't spend more than 5 Euro on wine and that you get great wine around that. But except for students getting ready for a binge, nobody considers tetra packed alcoholic grape juice as wine.

I wouldn't make the mistake of mixing cheap with value. What you value might just be cheap but more often then not it is a bargain.

The first time I drank with a multi millionaire we were having a jammy value buy called Seven Deadly Zins and Monkey Bay Sauvignon Blanc. Those two data points were his sessionable bargain buys and I loved the taste too.

Personally, I have also enjoyed a bottle of Opus One but later on discovered those same taste characteristics in a Spanish Garnacha blend I believe to be re labeled as Atteca. I should have bought a case of that stuff it was an amazing find and had legs for days.

My findings are that below a tenner is cheap stuff waiting to become a vinaigrette of regret in form of buyers remorse. Around the 14usd mark is where value van be found. Such as Trader Joe's seasonal reserve offering they put out for New Years. When a vintner puts their name on the offering and takes the care to select the best grapes of the season then you can taste the bargain.

Wanting to taste a bottle of Amarone, my next bargain finding adventure has led me here: Father and Son Amarone Tasting Episode #800 Wine Library TV 2010 17:00 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9wUxIdIosg TL;DW 2005 Tommasi Amarone

This is funny, reading this sipping on a cheap Californian wine I got at the local grocery store because it was too late to hit the SAQ ( you see, good wine is the prerogative of government retailing in the Belle Province (Quebec), a bit like the Sweedish poster I just read. There's good sides and bad sides to that, one of the bad sides is government workers dont tend to work long hours... oh well).

Not sayin californians have not learned a thing or two about wines in the last 100 years; in fact I've drank IMHO outstanding wines from the west coast, especially from Walla Walla valley. The've also nailed the champagne technique 100% in my books.

Just saying that the guys in Bordeaux and in Piedmont have been at the red wine thing for the last 2000 years, pre any marketing-to-unsuspecting-masses techniques. The best analogy I've read here is music; sometimes musak is fine (the elevator, the grocery store etc) sometimes I wish I could tune it out. YMMV. But I just cant stop telling Charlie Parker or Dave Brubeck from the rest; so dont listen to them if you dont want to be disappointed on your next elevator ride!

:-)

Cheers!! F

Sure, if you are looking for a beverage, then buy cheap wine, have a soda, or drink some water. All are tasty and thirst quenching!

If you are fascinated by wine as art, though, you are going to be looking for something /interesting/-- unique and handcrafted. And those qualities always cost money, because you are paying for somebody's effort and talent. If you love good cooking, for example, you don't eat instant ramen every night. You go out to have fun and see what the most inventive chefs are doing.

Bare Bottle is a startup trying to bring this creative aspect to the fore, by pairing great winemakers and designers (http://barebottle.com). Both artists involved are "great" because they are creative originals who make something unique, not merely because they produce something acceptable to wash down your ramen.

Disclosure: I am a co-founder of Bare Bottle.

There's this really interesting concept of "experience stretching" in Dan Gilbert's book "Stumbling on happiness". That as you refine your taste you demote everything else. When you've been to Hawaii your local resort won't seem so good. When you start drinking expensive wine everything else taste like swill.

The question of course, is it a good thing to indulge in experience stretching or should one not try things that we'll miss.

I always had the feeling that of course we should strive for constant refinement, atleast within some boundaries rather than stay ignorant... but it's not always the easiest route when your taste start to outmatch your capabilities and wallet :)

I think it's unfair to compare U.S. consumption with that of Europe. It is a much larger part of the culture to casually drink a glass of wine with, let's say lunch, than it is to do so in the U.S. Because of this, it makes sense that Europeans don't place too much social stock in high quality, expensive wine when providing for guest. As an American, I drink wine typically on special occasions or nice, intimate dinners.. so of course I'll shell out a little extra because it's part of the sentiment.

That's one of the (few) things that is good about the monopoly in Sweden, awesome wine for cheap price (9-10$). Since they negotiate for whole of Sweden they get good prices. We also have a tier system where only the best selling wines remain in "tier 1" (every shop).

Due to the proclivities of Swedish people drinking wine-in-a-box (in a park) it's also resulted in us having above normal quality selection of boxed wines.

Spirits are damn expensive though... and you can't buy anything cold, or on a sunday :)

I've been seriously into wine for several years now. I've been very lucky and tried a lot of stuff. From pretty expensive, to super cheap.

First of all, this article is completely flawed.

Don't drink cheap wine, drink -good wine-.

Good wine, doesn't have to be expensive though. Like literature, wine is subjective, so what you may find entertaining or good today, may change tomorrow. That's why when you really like wine, you should try to keep an open mind and keep tasting everything you can.

The wine industry in the states is super stalled, and there's almost nothing interesting and fresh going on here, at least it's been like that since the 2000's. There are a lot of factors in play, but the biggest one is the price of land which makes it harder for smaller and better producers (vignerons) to actually farm their grapes.

The small guys, end up buying grapes and trying to find guys who are farming properly, etc etc. Which is super hard here. In California, dry farming is almost non-existent... pesticides are the rule, and high yields the norm.

There are other regions around the world that are pretty stalled too. Bordeaux is one of those regions, super predictable, super standardized and most of the time boring. At least that's the case if you're looking to drink a statement or the 'work' of a true Vigneron.

'Cheap and Good' wine in California can be found in the 15 range... but I've found that most of the smaller producers find it hard to produce surprising stuff for less than 20-25. Where in France/Italy, a similar quality could be achieved on a 10-15 Euros Bottle.

Bottom line, drink good wine. Good wine, is not necessarily expensive and it's totally worth the adventure of finding it. Bad wine can be pretty bad for your health, and it's a waste of time.

The issue I see here is that a cheap bottle of wine in France is not the same quality as a similarly priced bottle in the US. Per capita demand is so much higher in Europe and a more saturated supply has risen to meet it. Firms compete on quality and consistency as prices have approached cost.

In the US, a cheap bottle of wine really is of lower quality.

I would love to see some evidence of this, as my subjective experience has been the opposite.

Well, according to the judges of a wine tasting competition in California, a $2 bottle of wine is the absolute best you can get. [1] I've seen countless reports of cheap wine outperforming or equalling expensive wines in blind taste tests, but I've yet to see a report of people preferring expensive wine without knowing the price beforehand.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Shaw_wine#Awards

The article states that cheap US wine is better than cheap European wine, but that sounds crazy to me. The last time I was in France, you could buy 3 EUR carafes of wine at a restaurant -- cheaper than a Coke! -- and it was really quite drinkable. That doesn't exist in the US.

I wish that I could not tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine. What I would say is that there is plenty of bad wine that is expensive, but very little good wine that is cheap.

My wife who has a good palate, but who takes no notice of what wine is what (effectively she tastes everything blind), can instantly pick if I try and sneak in a cheap wine. I get responses along the line of "this wine is not very good - can you open a bottle of that wine we had last week instead?". So far I have not been able to fool her once out of more than a dozen tries :(

One reason to avoid the absolutely bottom end wines even if you can't tell the difference is that these wines will be much more likely to give you a massive hangover. I have had some really cheap wines that one glass is enough to make you feel like you had consumed two bottles on your own.

Drink cheap wine, enjoy buzzfeed, don't worry about reading the classics, fuck Mozart because you know best. Even without even remotely investigating the subject. Just like all programmers are geeks, there is no beauty or art in programming. Because you know best. No need to investigate.

wow. I'll drink to that to. Viva la revolution. Cheers!

The taste of wine is not the only quality of wine.

Like 2001, The Great Gadsby, The Dark Side of the Moon, or Guernica, wine can embody life beyond how much (or little) you enjoy it. The details—"hints of cassis, subtle earthiness, and jammy notes"—do not determine its quality either.

It is its history, its vigor, the revealed clues of its past—the flavors and smells that drive you to wildness and longing. A good wine makes your reminisce; a great wine makes you question.

The author assumes that a pleasurable taste trumps all, and that price comes in a close second. And it likely does for most buyers—but that says more about us than it does about wine. People are not art.

Can you get a cheap wine that tastes good? Of course. But expect to get a poster of the Mona Lisa rather than the real thing.

This just seems like an ill-informed piece written by someone who is determined not to enjoy wine. If cheap wine tastes okay to you, buy cheap wine. If you can detect and appreciate a difference in more expensive wine - that's you, not "studies" or the "wine industry experts" sneered at in this article - then buy more expensive wine, if you can afford it and it seems like a priority in your life.

This is kind of silly. Drink wine that you like to drink. I would certainly not recommend avoiding a wine because of its price but for any widely distributed bottles generally places like CostCo seem to be consistently priced reasonably. And if you like it, buy a case, if you don't don't. The thing about most wines is that if they aren't a blend they don't taste the same harvest to harvest.

A fun look at the cost to produe wine. How does wine get to $100 / bottle at retail: http://www.coffaro.com/BrendansTruth.html

Pretty accurate based on what I see price wise as a hobby winemaker. You can make good wine for $5 per bottle in your garage (assuming your time and garage are free!)

I had a great and likely subsidized Lafite wine in Vegas. The bouquet went into my nose like a tasty explosion filling my entire head. This is even when I had issue with sinusitis. It changed my view of wines forever with one glass. If I find a cheap wine like this...

I've been in the wine business for 23 years. Currently I'm battling to tame a vineyard in Northern Burgundy, all by hand (as I have no money for such luxuries as Tractors).

I'm sure as hell going to be asking for a fair price for the wine at the end of it.

Congrats. horticulteur and hacker, I'll drink to that. Keep up with your vision!

It's funny that they show the blender-trick. Have anyone tried this? From what I've heard it can turn an awful wine into something passable but it also turns good wine into bad. Basically all wines blended will taste flat and the same.

Where my wife and I generally explore more expensive wines are when we indulge at Michelin * restaurants, or similar -- maybe 2x a year. We generally find taste depends on what we are eating, and rather than ordering the wine paring for a course/near, taste and evaluate as we go. Note, the only Michelin * restaurants we've been to are in the states.

When we travel Europe, give us local.

Local Bay Area, little difference for $20ish and $40ish local bottles.

Thankfully, beer isn't so inflated. You can try almost every interesting beer out there under $30.

in true experience I have to say that there can be (there not automatically is) much more to a 80$ bottle from pomerol than to a 22000$ phone.

If you and your significant other were to drink five bottles of wine a week

That's 12 1/2 to 15 glasses of wine a week. I'm hardly a teetotaler, but that seems excessive.

The start of the next paragraph already mentions your point, and says on average people drink 1 bottle/month.

A bottle is usually about 4 glasses (which is consistent with my experience, not sure how you made your calculation), so when shared, that's one to drink with the meal and one to share over conversation after. I'm far from a teetotaler, but it doesn't seem terribly excessive when phrased that way.

It may depend on your upbringing. In the modern US, particularly the more puritan regions, any alcohol at all is usually considered a luxury reserved for celebration, but in some parts of the world, wine or beer is just the drink you drink with a meal, and there's less of a stigma about it. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing, but applying the label "excess" is a pretty specifically cultural decision.

A single serving of wine is 4 to 5 ounces. Don't base it off of restaurant pours, they often over-pour to compensate for the high markup.

A bottle is at least 25 ounces. Split between two people, that's 2.5 to 3.125 glasses of wine per person per bottle. 5 times a week, that's 12.5 to over 15 ounces.

I'm in the US, but from an Italian family. Wine was on the table often, especially around my extended family. I enjoy whiskey, and I've been into savory hard ciders since I found out beer is out of the question. Like I said, hardly a teetotaler.

Yet I'm under no illusions that drinking 15 servings of alcohol a week regularly is recommended. If someone were drinking that much, that consistently, their physician would definitely recommend that they cut their consumption considerably.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-con...

that's 2 glasses a day. i don't think many would call that "excessive".

Sure, but that's two glasses of wine 7 days a week with no days off.

A bottle is 750mL, or ~26oz. Five bottles, then divide by two, then by 7, and you're on average drinking 267 mL each, or 9 ounces per day. That's just under 2 'standard' drinks here. In some restaurants that's a single pour.

Anyhow, that sort of consumption is pretty average in many parts of the world, Europe for example. And far from excessive.

> that sort of consumption is pretty average in many parts of the world, Europe for example.

The highest consumption of alcohol is Estonia, at 415.9oz of pure alcohol a year. Taking wine at 12% alcohol content, that's 3,465oz per year. That's 9.49oz per day.

I simply disagree that matching the highest consumption rate in the world is recommended, especially when a country like Italy , among one of the top wine producing countries, is at half that rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_co...

And the European average seems to be around the 7-9 oz per day mark based on your chart.

For instance France is barely behind Estonia, and half a dozen other countries are within a litre/year.

The guy who wrote this is a total barbarian...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com