"A Fine Glass of Hooey":debunking dubious claims

[Gifted Gourmet]

CNN Money article

Wine is what economists call an "experience good"--you can't decide how much it's worth to you until you drink it, but you have to buy it before you can drink it....  If all you desire is a great experience at a good price, the guidelines for quality that you've been using--price, the information on the label, ratings--are irrelevant. You might as well pick the bottle with the coolest-looking label.

Dubious Claim No. 1    Expensive = Good

Dubious Claim No. 2    Costly "Reserve" Wines Are Better

Dubious Claim No. 3   Experts Know What's Good for You

Dubious Claim No. 4   Store Owners Know Nothing

So you think you could distinguish between red and white wine if you were blindfolded? Take this test--in front of guests, if you dare.

1 EQUIPMENT ...

2 PREP ...

3 TIPS ...

There is a great amount of information in this article which I hope you will be able to take the time to read .. and discuss, of course ...

[Brad Ballinger]

Poorly researched. Poorly written. Myth debunking doesn't mean disregarding it altogether. The writer's discourse about Dubious Claim No. 2, for example, address shallow perceptions of wannabe aficianados, but does nothing to educate the reader about why bottles are labeled thusly. And his knowledge of what "grand cru" actually means is sorely lacking.

It's more entertainment than education. And very sloppy.

[jsolomon]

But relying on experts to tell you which wine to drink is like asking a

hot-dog vendor for movie reviews.

How can you call brilliantly insightful thoughts like this one sloppy?

The one truly good compliment I can give this article is Myth 4 that store-owners know nothing. I can point to store owners that are at both ends of the spectrum, but they are there to help you find what you are willing to pay for.

Of course, no one really helps you figure out how to buy wine for someone else's taste in those articles...

[Rebel Rose]

Actually, I thought the article, while presented in somewhat simplistic terms, was very empowering. Each debunk section has a "What to Do" as well, which I felt was very encouraging.

There seems to be this experience chasm that wine drinkers reach, like passing the first level in a video game, where a buyer's interest in the industry is tweaked, but then there's the level of buying where a consumer wants to graduate from grabbing a warm bottle off a grocery shelf to choosing something nice in a wine store . . .

I can attest that many wine stores have snooty floor staff. Heck, they've tried to intimidate and ignore ME! Can you imagine.

[Melanger]

Seems like the article was subsidised by the Jug Wine Producers of America

[JohnL]

CNN Money article

Wine is what economists call an "experience good"--you can't decide how much it's worth to you until you drink it, but you have to buy it before you can drink it....  If all you desire is a great experience at a good price, the guidelines for quality that you've been using--price, the information on the label, ratings--are irrelevant. You might as well pick the bottle with the coolest-looking label.

Dubious Claim No. 1    Expensive = Good

Dubious Claim No. 2    Costly "Reserve" Wines Are Better

Dubious Claim No. 3    Experts Know What's Good for You

Dubious Claim No. 4    Store Owners Know Nothing

So you think you could distinguish between red and white wine if you were blindfolded? Take this test--in front of guests, if you dare.

1 EQUIPMENT ...

2 PREP ...

3 TIPS ...

There is a great amount of information in this article which I hope you will be able to take the time to read .. and discuss, of course ...

←

I have mixed thoughts about this type of article (and this specific piece).

First, myths, stereotypes and conventional wisdom regarding anything are often rooted in truths and half truths.

Second wine is a very complex substance and subject.

Wine has a termendous amount of mystique surrounding it--propegated by wine makers and the wine trade itself as well as many wine writers.

Attempts to "demystify" wine are to be applauded--it is at its simplist level a beverage to be enjoyed alone or with food.

However, to strip away all mystique is wrong and a disservice to consumers. It is mystique that adds to one's enjoyment. With something so complex it is impossible to apply generalizations which is what many of these articles do.

For eg the piece in question.

One could make a good case that "expensive does equal good."

The problem is--there are many wines that are inexpensive and good.

The generalizations, in this case, are as true as they are false.

Costly and reserve wines are often "better" however, there are enough examples of the converse to render this generalization half true at best. The example of the $70 wine vs the $15 cabernet is silly. One can make a case that a fifteen grand Toyota is a "better car" than a Two Hundred grand Ferrari as well. A case of oversimplification.

As for "experts know what's good for you." well, the irony is, via this piece the author sets himself up as an "expert" telling us what is good for us.

The piece even makes a good case for "expert" advice by noting that wine can be expensive and one can't taste before one buys so.....

The fact is--experts have a place in providing information and perspective to the equation. Scores and tasting notes are nothing more (or less) than information to be used by a consumer in helping to make a choice. To deny that someone who has tasted thousands of wines and has a broad knowledge of wine has little of nothing to bring to the table or should be ignored is also silly.

The piece contradicts itself by telling one to ignore critics but also notes one should pay attention when critics agree!

"Store owners know nothing." Again store owners can be immensely helpful or not. However, one reason this article exists is due, in part, to the fact that the trade has done a less than optimal job. There's a good argument that the "experts" have thrived because wine shop owners have done a poor job.

What I find troubling about these types of articles is they invariably talk down to consumers and they tend to pander to a kind of anti elitist mentality (establishing a very much elitist position of their own). Sort of: "ya know those people driving those $200K Ferraris --well they really don't know anything about cars because if they did--they would be in $15K Toyotas! So you shoul;dn't feel bad when you are actually a smart consumer!"

There are reasons that some wines are very expensive and some not so expensive. Some of the reasons are good some not. With a little reading one can find out why and make one's own decisions.

The fact is that a strong argument can be made in support of say, the Screaming Eagle (or Margaux or Leroy Musigny or JJ Prum or....) and its high cost and high demand just as one can make a case for many wines of lesser cost as offering good value. To dismiss the person who buys Screaming Eagle as an "status conscious idiot" who really doesn't know wine is as elitist and narrow minded as the argument itself.

So too, it is a mistake to dismiss "experts" --someone had to tell the world that often a Grand Cru Burgundy can be inferior in quality (or less a value) to a premier cru from a more talented producer.

One can agree or disagree with critics and writers but one should at the least understand what the critics are saying. and more often than not-most critics provide valuable information and perspective to consumers who do not have the time or inclination to figure out what arcane labels indicate or what red wine will go well with their planned meatloaf dinner. (the trade certainly has not earned any trust here).

Finally, to reduce wine to a parlour game--gee "experts" can't even tell a white from a red--is in itself a silly parlour game of "gottcha." It is meaningless.

To basically tell consumers that wine is all about money (value) and "only one's individual and unique palate counts." That all one needs do is establish a budget walk into a store and talk to a clerk, buy inexpensive wine and pick one that tastes good (to summarize the article) is condescending to consumers and readers and insulting to wine itself.

The glories of a great wine (expensive or not) and the pleasure that can be enhanced by a bit of learning and experimentation are given short shrift.

In the end--these "debunking" pieces do more harm than good. Wine appreciation (like appreciation of many things) is not some totally mystical experience that renders knowledge and consensus and a measure of objectivity useless.

Yes we all know that "hey its whatever your palate is turned on by so money isn't important."

and caviar is just fish eggs and a Ferrari is just a car and.........

But really, how simplistic-- how banal!

[Gifted Gourmet]

Actually, I thought the article, while presented in somewhat simplistic terms, was very empowering.  Each debunk section has a "What to Do" as well, which I felt was very encouraging. 

←

Thanks for saying this, RR! I thought that I had poorly misunderstood the intent of the article but your confirmation made sense ...I, too, liked the addition of the "What to Do" section ...

[russ parsons]

while i really, really hate that kind of journalism, i suppose you could say that anything that gets someone who is afraid of wine to try it might be a good thing. maybe. but surely there has to be a more honest way to do it.