This study doesn't show that there is no difference between a great wine and a mediocre wine. All it shows is that people can be tricked into disbelieving their senses.
EDIT: As for the study about experts disagreeing, you could just as easily claim that because some ice cream experts prefer vanilla and others prefer chocolate, the ice cream industry is teh fraud.
Wonder how both things can be true at the same time? Perhaps the tasting methodologies are just a fancy random-number generator? Something smells fishy.
It's a matter of trust. Each of these people has had thousands of red wines served to them, with none of them being an impostor white with food coloring. Therefore if a white is served to them in disguise, they simply assume it's a red, because why would anyone ever do that?
Also, whites are typically served chilled, reds aren't. If someone gave me a warm white wine with red food coloring in it I might not care for it but I'd definitely be fooled. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
A much better test would be to blindfold them and ask which are whites and which are red. I bet they'd do considerably better.
Well, in a blind tasting it's much more likely that the judges will describe the quality of the wine itself. Otherwise the appearance of the wine and the bottles make a difference. This holds true for any product and companies spend tons of money finding ways to optimize their packaging to "enhance" the perceived quality of their product.
>>>In 2002, Franzia persuaded Trader Joe's to sell a low-end label called Charles Shaw (after the winemaker who sold the tony label to Franzia, and dubbed Two Buck Chuck by consumers) that waged war on domestic wines in the $4 to $10 range - and was named best chardonnay in a blind taste test at July's California State Fair over far pricier competition. The label is one of America's fastest-growing, selling 5 million cases per year, all through one chain of stores.
Well, the highest profit in the beverage industry has traditionally come from the low end. See the Gallos, or Anheuser Busch. That doesn't make the good beverages or the people who enjoy them pretentious.
the reason that charles shaw wins those taste testing contests is pretty simple, and shady to say the least.
the way they make their wine is by purchasing overstock of grapes from other producers. the grapes are very spotty and inconsistent in quality, which is why you can buy a case of the wine and every bottle will be completely different.
when they submit charles shaw to tastings, do you think they pick a random bottle out of inventory? of course not, they pick the best of what they have so that they can compete.
The price per ton of Chardonnay is relatively inexpensive, especially if you're getting your grapes from outside of Napa. Also, by California law only 75% of the grapes have to come from the named varietal on the bottle, so they could easily be blending in some Chenin Blanc or Sauvignon Blanc for consistency. Lastly, there is a lot of post-production stuff you can do to Chardonnay, most famously involving oak, but there is other stuff as well. So it seems possible that they can source from a wide variety of vinyards and still have a relatively consistent product, given the wide variety of options available under California law.
If that's true, then it's a serious flaw in the methodology of the people who do the testing. They shouldn't allow the brewer to submit the samples. They should pick a few bottles of the same vintage from various retailers and mix them together.
If you go to the store without much prior knowledge and grab an expensive bottle of the shelf your chances of getting something great aren't that high. Some things to consider: wines sell for the same price whether or not it was a good or a bad year. A premium wine in a bad year is likely to be less enjoyable than a cheap wine in good year. Premium wines are generally made to be aged, so if you don't cellar your wines you are wasting your money buying an expensive wine. Even the snobbiest wine collector doesn't suggest there is a linear relationship between price and enjoyment, but premium wines generally take more effort to make.
A lot of the quality of a wine comes down to the fruit. Do you doubt your ability to identify a beautiful strawberry?
Well, the fact that so many strawberries nowadays are large and water-filled (from being over-watered) to make them look super-sized rather than more flavour-packed smaller runtier berries may imply there are quite a few consumers who can't identify a good strawberry.
People buy on the look, not the taste. And they generally don't want to pay anymore for a great tasting strawberry even if they knew how to find one. Most people wouldn't deny there is a difference in a crap strawberry and a great one though.
You should see what master sommeliers have to go through to earn that title. There are more people out there than you could imagine who can look at a glass of wine and tell you what varietal (or roughly what blend) it is, what vintage it is from, what location the grapes were grown in, rough ABV, etc. It's seriously mind boggling how good some of those guys are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
This study doesn't show that there is no difference between a great wine and a mediocre wine. All it shows is that people can be tricked into disbelieving their senses.
EDIT: As for the study about experts disagreeing, you could just as easily claim that because some ice cream experts prefer vanilla and others prefer chocolate, the ice cream industry is teh fraud.