f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
My mental model of wine (as a wine troglodyte)
Is that the quality of wine (or anything of subjective taste) is logarithmically related to the price. With some large error bars that handwave at personal preference. And the quality is proportional to price not because you get what you pay for, but you don't get what you don't pay for.
Anyways, the above is obvious. What I'm finding surprising is that so many people here are defending blatant status signaling as anything but. To those of you getting mad at the notion that someone might not see the appeal of 200 USD wine, do you really derive 10x the satisfaction than a 20 USD wine? If yes, is that satisfaction in your taste buds or knowing that you can spend 200 USD on fermented grapes?
I'm also deeply annoyed at the notion some people have that complexity (number of differentiable details) = quality. If you mix cheap but different wines, you probably get a new wine that is at most twice as complex, perhaps even more complex than a much more expensive wine. And a professional sommelier might even be able to parse that complexity, does that lead to the conclusion its better?
But I suppose status signaling isn't really effective if the signal is not modulated. The subtler the signal the better?
Yeah Yeah "I know who is the better painter in the set {Monet, A 3 year old}.
I just don't think there is enough bandwidth (and error bars small enough and instruments accurate enough) in most matters of taste to really conclude that one preference suggests you are more high-falutin than the other. Literature might be the exception not the rule.
I default to vacuous status signaling until proven otherwise when I come across arguments of this form.
I've always been too broke to get into wine, so maybe this analogy will miss...
It's kind of like music. Anyone can have an opinion about what they like and they're not wrong. But some people dedicate their lives to music and have a better ear, larger vocabulary, better understanding of complexity/history/what have you... These people might have a completely different tastes and all sorts of rational as to why something is good (or better).
But, at the end of the day: Is Holdsworth a better than Iommi? Probably, but I know who I'd rather listen to...
I don’t know how broke you are and where you live, but if you sign up for a rewards account at Total Wine, and activate the offers they run on various categories of “winery direct” wines on their app, while buying in store, that’s about the most economical approach you can find.
The wines they label as”winery direct” are from large producers that give TW bulk discounts. And then TW runs 15-20% off retail on those wines as part of their loyalty program. Offers are things like 15% off Italian winery direct wines, or 20% off any six winery direct wines.
And then the Wine Folly website is a great free resource with info about major varietals/wines/regions.
Familiarize yourself with varietals/wines and try some food pairings. Can certainly dip your toe in with $10-16 bottles (if interested).
And, there are even some eminently-drinkable boxed wines on a budget. I’m brining Ropiteau Freres pinot noir to Thanksgiving. That’s the equivalent of four bottles for $25. Le Petit Frog makes a mightily-acceptable boxed white.
I've found Pinot Noir to be the best pairing with the traditional American Thanksgiving meal, there are some other good options, though and none seem to be perfect, so don't be afraid to try a few.
I've always found it difficult to be a wine beginner. So many varieties of grapes, makers, etc. I need to get over myself and do proper research. lol
(Sorry if this is a dumb question): What's a good price point for a pinot noir? I'm kind of assuming that (most) cheap wine isn't good and expensive wine is a diminishing return curve...
It depends on where you are, in the west I would look for an American (California or Northwest) start in the 12-20 range, and start with the ones that have lots of fruit/jammy terms in their description (try to hit a total wine or Trader Joe's if you can (just pick something in the middle of the price hump at TW or that has a good description at TJs). You can experiment from there (there used to be a lot of good Northwest pinot noirs under $10).
If you're buying for Thanksgiving, I usially look for one with a pairing suggestion with salmon or roast meats or has some earthy tasting notes (sometimes tobacco, grass/hay) and don't be afraid to bump the price a little if it's affordable and something sounds like a great match with your favorite dish.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
f3zinker 1yr ago
To those of you getting mad at the notion that someone might not see the appeal of 200 USD wine, do you really derive 10x the satisfaction than a 20 USD wine? If yes, is that satisfaction in your taste buds or knowing that you can spend 200 USD on fermented grapes?
Speaking for bourbon rather than wine, but I don't need to get 10x the satisfaction for it to be worth it - I can only drink so much bourbon and having a few of those pours be expensive is worthwhile to me. Even at a $200 bottle (which is a price I haven't paid yet), I'd be looking at roughly 16 1.5 oz pours, which makes them about $12.50 per pour. If we're thinking wine bottles, we're talking about $40/glass. Both of those are expensive! But they're also well within the range of prices that normal, upper-middle class people can swing without changing anything about their lives otherwise, at least when we're talking about the occasional treat.
Put another way, there's no meaningful tradeoff that I'm making. The marginal dollars that I spend on nice bourbon would otherwise add nothing to my life. I can easily imagine this calculus shifting much, much farther if I made a lot more money.
I’m an American, and wine in the U.S. is generally more expensive than in Europe (because wine produced abroad and sold retail must be brought in by a licensed American distributor and these middle-men don’t run charities, and it is far more common that European producers have owned the land their vineyards are on since before anyone now working it was born). Just my opinion, but I find the best bang for the buck is around $35-40 if you also have a large wine fridge in which to age bottles for multiple years (the quick requirements are no UV light, store around 54-55 degrees Fahrenheit, keep away from significant vibration). Helps to have enough storage that you can cut down on the per-bottle shipping costs and lock in bulk discounts by ordering by the case (12 bottles).
Wine, whether corked or screw top, continues to slowly oxidize in the bottle. Kept at proper temperature the aging can alter a wine’s flavor in a desirable way. Not kept at proper temperature, it will wreck the wine.
Different wines/varietals benefit from aging differently. Some wines are generally considered best young, like a New Zealand Sauv Blanc, as people are usually looking for bright acidity when selecting one. As a rule of thumb reds benefit from longer aging more than whites. But you can age whites, too. My favorite bottle I’ve consumed was a 10-year-old white Bordeaux.
And within reds, those with higher tannin benefit from longer aging. I like to tuck Willamette Valley Pinot Noir away for five years. But, you can age California Cab Sauv, red Bordeaux, Cotes du Rhone, etc. for a decade plus.
And none of the above is to say you need to age wine after purchase. Here’s a good video looking at different vintages from the same wine:
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My mental model of wine (as a wine troglodyte)
Is that the quality of wine (or anything of subjective taste) is logarithmically related to the price. With some large error bars that handwave at personal preference. And the quality is proportional to price not because you get what you pay for, but you don't get what you don't pay for.
Anyways, the above is obvious. What I'm finding surprising is that so many people here are defending blatant status signaling as anything but. To those of you getting mad at the notion that someone might not see the appeal of 200 USD wine, do you really derive 10x the satisfaction than a 20 USD wine? If yes, is that satisfaction in your taste buds or knowing that you can spend 200 USD on fermented grapes?
I'm also deeply annoyed at the notion some people have that complexity (number of differentiable details) = quality. If you mix cheap but different wines, you probably get a new wine that is at most twice as complex, perhaps even more complex than a much more expensive wine. And a professional sommelier might even be able to parse that complexity, does that lead to the conclusion its better?
But I suppose status signaling isn't really effective if the signal is not modulated. The subtler the signal the better?
Yeah Yeah "I know who is the better painter in the set {Monet, A 3 year old}.
As is the argument @FiveHourMarathon is making.
I just don't think there is enough bandwidth (and error bars small enough and instruments accurate enough) in most matters of taste to really conclude that one preference suggests you are more high-falutin than the other. Literature might be the exception not the rule.
I default to vacuous status signaling until proven otherwise when I come across arguments of this form.
I've always been too broke to get into wine, so maybe this analogy will miss...
It's kind of like music. Anyone can have an opinion about what they like and they're not wrong. But some people dedicate their lives to music and have a better ear, larger vocabulary, better understanding of complexity/history/what have you... These people might have a completely different tastes and all sorts of rational as to why something is good (or better).
But, at the end of the day: Is Holdsworth a better than Iommi? Probably, but I know who I'd rather listen to...
I don’t know how broke you are and where you live, but if you sign up for a rewards account at Total Wine, and activate the offers they run on various categories of “winery direct” wines on their app, while buying in store, that’s about the most economical approach you can find.
The wines they label as”winery direct” are from large producers that give TW bulk discounts. And then TW runs 15-20% off retail on those wines as part of their loyalty program. Offers are things like 15% off Italian winery direct wines, or 20% off any six winery direct wines.
And then the Wine Folly website is a great free resource with info about major varietals/wines/regions.
Familiarize yourself with varietals/wines and try some food pairings. Can certainly dip your toe in with $10-16 bottles (if interested).
And, there are even some eminently-drinkable boxed wines on a budget. I’m brining Ropiteau Freres pinot noir to Thanksgiving. That’s the equivalent of four bottles for $25. Le Petit Frog makes a mightily-acceptable boxed white.
Huh, I'll check it out. And getting a few bottles for Thanksgiving is a good call!
Thanks for the rec!
I've found Pinot Noir to be the best pairing with the traditional American Thanksgiving meal, there are some other good options, though and none seem to be perfect, so don't be afraid to try a few.
I've always found it difficult to be a wine beginner. So many varieties of grapes, makers, etc. I need to get over myself and do proper research. lol
(Sorry if this is a dumb question): What's a good price point for a pinot noir? I'm kind of assuming that (most) cheap wine isn't good and expensive wine is a diminishing return curve...
It depends on where you are, in the west I would look for an American (California or Northwest) start in the 12-20 range, and start with the ones that have lots of fruit/jammy terms in their description (try to hit a total wine or Trader Joe's if you can (just pick something in the middle of the price hump at TW or that has a good description at TJs). You can experiment from there (there used to be a lot of good Northwest pinot noirs under $10).
If you're buying for Thanksgiving, I usially look for one with a pairing suggestion with salmon or roast meats or has some earthy tasting notes (sometimes tobacco, grass/hay) and don't be afraid to bump the price a little if it's affordable and something sounds like a great match with your favorite dish.
I'm going to hit Trader Joe's. Thank you!
/images/16687320802610567.webp
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking for bourbon rather than wine, but I don't need to get 10x the satisfaction for it to be worth it - I can only drink so much bourbon and having a few of those pours be expensive is worthwhile to me. Even at a $200 bottle (which is a price I haven't paid yet), I'd be looking at roughly 16 1.5 oz pours, which makes them about $12.50 per pour. If we're thinking wine bottles, we're talking about $40/glass. Both of those are expensive! But they're also well within the range of prices that normal, upper-middle class people can swing without changing anything about their lives otherwise, at least when we're talking about the occasional treat.
Put another way, there's no meaningful tradeoff that I'm making. The marginal dollars that I spend on nice bourbon would otherwise add nothing to my life. I can easily imagine this calculus shifting much, much farther if I made a lot more money.
More options
Context Copy link
You’re right that it is generally logarithmic.
I’m an American, and wine in the U.S. is generally more expensive than in Europe (because wine produced abroad and sold retail must be brought in by a licensed American distributor and these middle-men don’t run charities, and it is far more common that European producers have owned the land their vineyards are on since before anyone now working it was born). Just my opinion, but I find the best bang for the buck is around $35-40 if you also have a large wine fridge in which to age bottles for multiple years (the quick requirements are no UV light, store around 54-55 degrees Fahrenheit, keep away from significant vibration). Helps to have enough storage that you can cut down on the per-bottle shipping costs and lock in bulk discounts by ordering by the case (12 bottles).
I thought that these days wine doesn't gain much by aging. You're meant to drink it soon. In fact, if you keep it for years, it'll go bad.
Wine, whether corked or screw top, continues to slowly oxidize in the bottle. Kept at proper temperature the aging can alter a wine’s flavor in a desirable way. Not kept at proper temperature, it will wreck the wine.
Different wines/varietals benefit from aging differently. Some wines are generally considered best young, like a New Zealand Sauv Blanc, as people are usually looking for bright acidity when selecting one. As a rule of thumb reds benefit from longer aging more than whites. But you can age whites, too. My favorite bottle I’ve consumed was a 10-year-old white Bordeaux.
And within reds, those with higher tannin benefit from longer aging. I like to tuck Willamette Valley Pinot Noir away for five years. But, you can age California Cab Sauv, red Bordeaux, Cotes du Rhone, etc. for a decade plus.
And none of the above is to say you need to age wine after purchase. Here’s a good video looking at different vintages from the same wine:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ulhu86IIkt4
(Any wine you plan to drink within six to nine months after purchase will be just fine at room temperature in your home.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link