Shanti’s Dispatches

This one’s for the Sideways fans.

Jonah Lehrer of Science Blogs writes:

In 2001, Frederic Brochet, of the University of Bordeaux, conducted two separate and very mischievous experiments. In the first test, Brochet invited 57 wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn’t stop the experts from describing the “red” wine in language typically used to describe red wines. One expert praised its “jamminess,” while another enjoyed its “crushed red fruit.” Not a single one noticed it was actually a white wine.

Summary: wine experts either cannot really tell white wine from red wine, or (as one commenter suggests), were afraid of stepping out on a limb and identifying this possibility in their tasting results. Lehrer continues:

The second test Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle was a fancy grand-cru. The other bottle was an ordinary vin du table. Despite the fact that they were actually being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the differently labeled bottles nearly opposite ratings. The grand cru was “agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded,” while the vin du table was “weak, short, light, flat and faulty”. Forty experts said the wine with the fancy label was worth drinking, while only 12 said the cheap wine was.

This one seems pretty obvious. While drinking some $100 / bottle the other night (I wasn’t paying, mind you) I wanted to bring up how Charles Shaw’s famous “$2 Buck Chuck” often wins tasting contests against much more expensive bottles:

The affordable wine beat out 350 other California chardonnays to win the double gold. Second place went to an $18 bottle, and the most expensive wines at the event, at the price of $55, didn’t even medal.

Of course, leave it to mainstream media to do a thoroughly retarded, unscientific hatched job on $2 chuck. From the ABC News link above:

After its big win, ABC News decided to put the cheap stuff to a blind taste test and see if it would repeat the victory. It was disguised and served along with chardonnays of various prices, including a $120 bottle.

In this test, Caroline Styne, co-owner and wine director of two trendy Los Angeles area restaurants, judged the wines — but to a different outcome. She ranked “Chuck” dead last, but second-to-last was the $120 variety.

So you’re telling me that Caroline Styne doesn’t like $2 chuck?!? Stop the presses — it must be true, the wine was “disguised” and served along with chardonnays of various prices!

You can bookmark this, digg this or check the cosmos