Carbon-14 Dating Reveals 5% of Vintage Wines May Be Frauds

Carbon dating isn't used only for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are. An anonymous reader writes "Up to 5% of fine wines are not from the year the label indicates, according to Australian researchers who have carbon-dated some top dollar wines."

Comments

-1 wine snobs

[martas]

hurray!

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Cryacin]

Isn't it funny how wine connoisseurs play this weird guessing game.

"Can you guess what wine it is?"

"Chateu Latour 1986?"

"Nooooo! 1985!!!"

"Damn! So close!!!"

I mean, you don't exactly hear winos on the street going...

"Yes, fantastic vintage!" "About four O'Clock!"
"Goes well with the carcass of KFC, from bin number four..."

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, my. There was a hysterically funny sketch on Carol Burnett, decades about an alcoholic wine expert who was lured into a final tasting match against another expert. His opponent's failing description included the type of wine, the year, the winery, and the name of the girl who stomped the grapes. But he got the name of the girl wrong.

The alcoholic's winning description was "Isss g-o-o-d".

Re:-1 wine snobs

[crossmr]

No, but you do have geeks who sit around forums and hunt for screen shots from obscure old 80s games to try and make each other guess them.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Jeremy Erwin]

Latour 1990 is supposed to be quite good. The 1990 vintage sells for more than twice as much as the more pedestrian 1989 vintage. There's profit in switching the labels.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[purduephotog]

Actually, my wife and I make our own wine. We compare with other neighbors that do- and sometimes the 'vintages' are expressed in single digits- representing the number of WEEKS it's aged.

(And not all homemade wine is crap. I follow the same processes the big wineries do- even down to a sub-micron filter for clarification and stabilization. I use the same chemicals, same oaks, etc. My wines tend to be very good)...

Re:-1 wine snobs

[mcgrew]

I prefer cheap wines, my favorite is Beaujolais. It seems odd, but the good years are the cheapest! I guess the reason is that in bad years there aren't as many grapes, making it rare.

Vintage doesn't matter with California wines, since the climate is steadier than other parts of the world (like Illinois or Italy).

It must be nice to have so much money you can waste it on snobbery (not). I feel sorry for people like that, whose worth as a human is measured by their money. An old Irish saying comes to mind: he who is loved is never poor.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[D'Sphitz]

I get my wine for $9/box, and it even comes with a spigot.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Jeremy Erwin]

Even those food and wine critics who have come around to the idea of box wines are loath to recommend anything below $18 for a 3 Liter box. It's not that they're snobs-- it's just that there's a lot of bad wine out there.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[natehoy]

Yes, there is a lot of bad wine out there. Surprisingly, very little of it seems to end up in boxes.

There's a LOT of decent (not fantastic, but decent) wine around the $10-12 price point for a 3L. I enjoy a nice bottle of wine every now and again, but for daily drinking table wine I pick up a 3L box and it lasts me for several weeks. Mondavi and Franzia are the only ones that comes to mind, but I shift brands around a lot.

Of course, "bad" wine is relative. Mondavi is not going to win me any connoisseur awards, but it's drinkable for my daily red, keeps very well for well over a month even after opening, and costs the equivalent of about $2-3 a bottle.

I like wine, but I also like having food with it and a roof over my head, so boxed wine works very well.

When I have friends over, or go visit friends, I buy bottles. For what my wife and I drink at home, we use a box.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wine tastes like shit.. but your wife was very good!

Re:-1 wine snobs

[geekoid]

The process for 'box wine' is actually a better way to get good, high quality and consistent wines.

However the bottle traditional. I would argue that a good way to tell id someone enjoys wine or enjoys being a snob about something is their reaction when discussion wine in a 'box'. Bag really.

If they like good wines, then they should be advocating the best process basedon it's merits, not tradition.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[cmiller173]

Tisdale Cabernet, $3.99/bottle or 3 bottles for $10 at my local wine shop. Great everyday drinking red. Of course the boxed wine reduces exposure to air so would probably keep longer.

For a dry white I go this route:

5 gallons apple juice

two pounds sugar

1 packet Montrachet yeast

ferment in a glass carboy until it falls clear (could be three+ months)

bottle

enjoy a crisp dry white with very little "apple" taste.

I actually sometimes keg this and push it with a couple PSI of co2 from one of the kegerator taps.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[fifedrum]

I was just going to post a recipe. The above will make a drinkable apple wine. s/apple juice/cider/g and you have yourself a very drinkable hard cider. It's so easy, even a caveman could do it.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Jeremy Erwin]

What if you're not looking for decent but fantastic? One of my favorite wines is a white Burgundy-- it's a St Veran, though unfortunately I don't remember the exact details, and the AOC isn't stocked in many local stores It's so well balanced that it "sends me to the moon."

The average, everyday white burgundy is pleasant, quaffable, buttery, or perhaps less so with an unfortunate and unpalatable oaky overtone. Sometimes, the merely average isn't enough-- and people are willing to pay a lot of money for the promise of transcendence.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[natehoy]

You know, I was given a little bit of gear for winemaking, and I really need to get in to it.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[natehoy]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying expensive wine to enjoy from time to time, and everything is relative to the enjoyer.

Heck, I've even been known to drop upwards of $20 for a decent bottle from time to time! :)

I usually buy "better" wines ($12+ a bottle) when I'm having friends over or taking a bottle over to enjoy with friends.

But it has to be budgeted along with everything else. If you buy wines above your price range occasionally for the promise of "transcendence", just remember that it's a transitory state. Eventually, it just becomes "wine" and you are still paying novelty prices for it. Your cost/benefit drops considerably.

I find that sticking to the cheapest drinkable wine I can find for my daily glass makes a really good wine that much more enjoyable when I splurge a little and buy something a tad nicer.

But, hey, that's me. If someone can afford $500/bottle wine for their daily table wine, more power to 'em! I can't, so I drink something I find enjoyable on a daily basis and keep a few bottles of something a little more special around for when the occasion warrants.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Falconhell]

A good friend of mine who is errmmm, partial to the odd drop (Bucket) of wine told me "There are no bad wines, some are just better than others".

I dont drink alcohol often, but some of my richer gliding clubmates are real experts, and I occasionally have a very small ammount (About 1/2 inch in a wine glass).

This has lead me to now have a very expensive taste in Red wines. ):

  Before I just did not like any. Now I find some of the really good ones are amazing. And I cant even drink cheap ones!

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Jeremy Erwin]

Some "Whole Foods" groceries have a automatic wine bar (several "Enomatic "machines), where you can buy wine by the ounce. On the one hand, the markup is steep, if not insane. On the other hand, if you want a few sips of Mouton Rothschild or Yquem, it's a whole lot less expensive than a bottle.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[OrangeCatholic]

I doubt it. There's nothing about a plastic bag that screams "quality." And they do pick up the plastic taste over time.

What's different about the process? I hope you realize you're talking about the end result here. Barreling should be the same.

Re:-1 wine snobs

[Phoghat]

Holy crap! Does this mean that my $100 dollar bottle of Chateauneuf-du-Pape is a fraud? Zut alors!

No One Would Notice

[geoffrobinson]

I've had a $400 wine before (obtained at a decent price and then aged). The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal relative to the price.

I doubt anyone without a really refined palate would be able to notice. And even if you did, you would probably chalk it up to poor storage or oxidation or something.

Re:No One Would Notice

[ravenspear]

I agree. While price matters to a certain extent (a cheap $10 bottle from the grocery might not be as good as a nice wine), spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a bottle of wine is a proposition with extraordinarily diminishing returns.

When you see how absurd some of those prices are, it's not surprising that you have people trying to fake it for a quick buck.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Cryacin]

Why is the parent modded troll? This is the concensus even amongst wine connoisseurs. There is a huge difference between a very high end wine such as a Grange Hermitage, and say a lowly poets corner, but that difference is still smaller than $12 compared to $599 (2000 vintage).

And what's the difference between a Grange and a Mouton Rothschild? Very subtle differences in pallete flavour etc, but quite a bit of price difference. $1107 for a 2000 vintage, (one of the best since 1986).

Seriously. You show me someone who says that a Mouton Rothschild is twice as good as a Grange, and 100 times as good as a poets corner, and I'll show you a person that likes to pretend he knows wine.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Bigjeff5]

The refined palate is the key, and while some people definitely have it, most people don't taste nearly enough wine to develop it (and I mean sip-spit, not sip-sip-sip).

For most people a $400 bottle of wine is nothing more than a status symbol, they'd probably enjoy a less complicated $20 wine a hell of a lot more.

Note: personally, I can barely remember which types of wines I like, let alone get all snobbish on age and vinyard.

Re:No One Would Notice

[linzeal]

Parent is not a troll. I too have had some relatively expensive wine and the difference between $10 to $20 is far greater than the difference between $20 and $200 and most wine/food magazines+blogs will agree.

The only time I have ended up drinking really expensive wine is when I'm being wined and dined by a sales droid. I've never dated anyone who thought it was important to drink any bottle over $20, but I would be interested to know of people who have.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

You or I might not notice, but that's like saying that nobody would notice the difference (blindfolded, let's say) between a performance from the Emerson string quartet and a typical conservatory quartet. Casual listeners might not, but avid (not necessarily brilliant) listeners would.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Archangel Michael]

$400 dollar wine is much like gold plated ethernet cables. Only less so.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Volante3192]

Those people, however, are the rare exception. The very very rare exception.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Cimexus]

Yep absolutely. There's a sweet spot in that 20-30 dollar range where you're getting 80% of the quality of a top wine for 10% of the price. Bit like buying computer hardware really :)

Re:No One Would Notice

[MishgoDog]

I drink a lot of wine, with a wide range of prices, and disagree.
While it certainly isn't a linear relationship to price, or indeed certain, I have had a lot of very expensive wine which I am more than happy to pay for because I can taste the difference.

I can find a $15 I like and drink, a $30 a love and drink a lot, and a $70 I savour and purely enjoy. The >$300 bottles I've had (not paid for by me, I'm a young professional supporting a student wife!), are usually better than the lot - just not (say) 10 times better than the $30 bottle.

To translate into geekspeak: a top of the line i7 processor might cost 10 times what a midrange 775pin would cost, but doesn't perform the same as 10 of the cheaper processor. Indeed, the majority of users (i.e. browsing & word processing) may not notice the difference.
But some people who are into their computers will definitely notice the difference, and will pay the extra.
I know the metaphor isn't perfect, but you get the gist.

All of that being said - aging wine can be a bit of pot luck unless the conditions are perfect.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but as a /.er I just HAVE to have gold plated Ethernet cables. Only those not in the know would dare be caught with anything else.

Re:No One Would Notice

[jrumney]

In many ways the wine market is similar to the hifi market. If only the butler had opened the wine using the correct polarisation of the Oxygen Free Corkscrew, you might have noticed the difference.

Re:No One Would Notice

[rve]

$400 dollar wine is much like gold plated ethernet cables. Only less so.

Gold plated wine is absolutely exquisite

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

For most people a $400 bottle of wine is nothing more than a status symbol, they'd probably enjoy a less complicated $20 wine a hell of a lot more.

No. Those people would not enjoy a less complicated $20 wine a hell of a lot more.

Why?

Because they couldn't be pretentious snobs with a wine that cost only $20.

Re:No One Would Notice

[stuckinphp]

TFA says otherwise 5% of the time.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Dahamma]

I've had a $400 wine before (obtained at a decent price and then aged).

Well, that's your problem. It tastes much better when you pay $400 for it upfront!

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this refined palate then something good or bad? =P

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

If they *think* the wine cost far more than $20 they'll happily be pretentious without regard for the actual value of the wine.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a $400 wine before (obtained at a decent price and then aged). The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal relative to the price.

I doubt anyone without a really refined palate would be able to notice. And even if you did, you would probably chalk it up to poor storage or oxidation or something.

First let me say I like wine, but I'm not a snob about it. A lot of the whole debate is a matter of various misunderstandings about wine.

First of all there really are two types of wines (in general). You have "normal" wine and then you have mass-produced wine. For beer-drinkers, it's like comparing a small microbrewery to a big company like Anheiser-Busch. The small brewery may or may not be very consistent between batches, but the big boys' are almost always identical.

So to start with, if we're talking about mass-produced wine then price is very rarely relevant to taste or quality.

The perception of "expensive = better" actually comes from traditionally made wines, which are actually pretty small operations.
The flavor varies from season to season depending on the weather, grow time, etc. and so you can get some pretty widely ranging results.
Good years will cost more than bad years, for a couple reasons. The most obvious one being that the winery will price the poor years cheaply, or even in some cases sell them under a different brand. The other reason being that when you're talking about a pretty limited vintage, the good stuff gets drank up pretty fast (or laid down in private cellars) and then it's just not around to buy in the first place.

So you get someone who isn't paying attention to the specifics of wine, who hears that brand XYZ is a really really good wine, so they go out and buy a bottle and it sucks. But what they don't realize is they bought a crap vintage year which has been marked up by the retailer due to the brand name, because they know that a lot of suckers with no taste will pay for it just to be snobs. So they say "Huh, that expensive wine isn't good, therefore expense has no relation to taste" instead of realizing they just had someone sell them a turd with a gold ribbon on it.

Does more expensive mean better taste? Well not always of course, but if you know what you're buying then as a general rule, it certainly CAN be an indicator.

Oh, and for really, really good wine... the reason why it's so expensive is that you just can't buy it. Period. There might only have been a couple hundred bottles of that vintage laid down, or even as few as a few dozen, and the only way you'll ever get to drink it is if you own, or know personally the owners of the vineyard itself... or happen to have enough money to pick up a few bottles at a private auction.

There is one additional factor for expensive wines, and that is how well they age. A very good wine will stay good a very long time if bottled properly... they can last for literally hundreds of years. Crap wines or shoddy botteling practices will result in a bottle of very expensive vinegar, however. So what happened was that over time people figured out not only which vineyards, but which year, would be the ones that were least likely to end up being a bottle of vinegar 50 or 100 years later, and those vineyards became all-around more expensive, and those specific years become extremely expensive. Especially as they get older and older.

This doesn't seem like that big of a deal these days, but that's because we take food preservation for granted most of the time. Anything that could last for several years was a very big deal, especially when we were still sailing around the planet in wooden boats with sails and taking months or years to complete voyages. It wasn't like you could just stop into the local grocery store in South American & pick up a bottle of wine from France.

Now there is a final piece of the puzzle here, and that's how mature the wine is. Most wine takes a few years to mature, and needs to be stored

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. While price matters to a certain extent (a cheap $10 bottle from the grocery might not be as good as a nice wine), spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a bottle of wine is a proposition with extraordinarily diminishing returns.

Yeah, I do believe paying over a $LARGE amount is all naught but pud-thumping -- "See what I can afford!"

Similarly, I strongly suspect most people who smoke $100 cigars in public smoke something a lot cheaper in private. Super-rich excepted.

I remember watching a program about the Concorde years back. Apparently it never made a dime of profit in all the years it flew -- it was all about British and French national pride. Both nations subsidized the hell out of it.

It was said on the program that one of the plane's staff was once directed to take a survey, asking all the passengers what they had paid for their tickets. To his surprise, most guessed at twice what they had paid -- since they were all booked by minions, the swells had no idea of the price. The airline could have doubled the price with the passengers being none the wiser.

Other side story -- Henry Kissinger hated flying on the Concorde. He wanted to work during the flight, but other (presumably lesser) people, by virtue of being well enough off to fly on it, felt free to come up to him to schmooze.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Barlo_Mung_42]

If I spend that much on wine I'm not going to spit it out. That's just crazy talk right there!

Re:No One Would Notice

[shutdown -p now]

There is a wine worth paying extra for - where you can definitely feel the difference - and it's icewine.

But then, that doesn't reach the $400+ territory, either, so your point still stands.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure it was a $400 bottle? ;)

In actuality, when I buy a bottle or two and I like it, I go out and buy a case immediately. There's little reason to change the labels of a low-cost wine so I buy it and wait. I remember one in particular: Mother Zin from 1999. It was $12 at the liquor mart. bought 2 that day. It was so damn good went back and bought 3 more. A few months later it was $40... And a few months after that even more. I really regret not buying a case or two at that time.

So lesson is... if you want great wine, try out a bunch of modest priced bottles and when you hit that one super-delicious one... buy a case or 2! Who cares if it appreciates in value or not - wine is for drinking!

Re:No One Would Notice

[KiloByte]

Gold plated wine is absolutely exquisite

No idea about wine, but here's vodka.

Re:No One Would Notice

[teg]

Seriously. You show me someone who says that a Mouton Rothschild is twice as good as a Grange, and 100 times as good as a poets corner, and I'll show you a person that likes to pretend he knows wine.

The first obstacle in your path, is defining what "twice as good" is...

Re:No One Would Notice

[fbjon]

It was a matter of price, but actually, the Concorde did make a profit, especially for BA. In fact, the survey you talk about revealed to BA that they were charging below the market price. Not only could they have raised prices, they actually did, and thus turned a neat profit. No surprise there.

Re:No One Would Notice

[fbjon]

s/matter of price/matter of pride/

Re:No One Would Notice

[fbjon]

Very rare? Hardly. I'd say I could teach most people to tell the difference consistently in a day, or a few days. Not necessarily just by the quality of the interpretation of the written music, but also by the technical quality of the players themselves. That's also a part of the played music, but much easier to assess objectively. This doesn't really translate to the sense of taste, though, so the example isn't very good to begin with.

Re:No One Would Notice

[zippthorne]

The refined palate is the key, and while some people definitely have it, most people don't taste nearly enough wine to develop it....

People with refined palates can't stand most wines....

Except for one bottle of irresponsibly cheap Cabernet from the supermarket, in my experience the more expensive the wine, the more likely you're drinking the cask instead of the grapes, which is fine for many (I find it unpleasant), but if one really likes the wood more than the water, it might be a good idea to think about switching the beverage choice from wine to whiskey.

Re:No One Would Notice

[PopeRatzo]

The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal

But there is some difference.

It's the people who believe there's a difference between a $7 vodka and $80 vodka that are the real crazies.

But what do I know? I smoke weed and leave the paint thinner to the losers.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but you're claiming to be able to taste the difference AND know the price. The problem is that people who know the price believe it tastes different (i.e. better) even if it doesn't. Now if you're saying you could, in a blind taste test, predict the price of a bottle with accuracy, that would be another story altogether.

Re:No One Would Notice

[houghi]

People have faked wine in the cheap ranges as well. So only the high price is not an excuse for a quick buck. Money is the reason, not the price. People will fake enything. They would fake the stuff at Wallmart if they would be able to make money out of it.

The price itself depends on simple supply and demand. If the demand is high enough and the supply is not, then there will be a higher price payed for it. There are people who pay thousands of dollars for a specific commic, while I can get comics for free with my free newspaper. People pay extra if the comic is "damaged" by the autograph of the writer.

That does not make the quality of the comic any different or even better then what you can get now.

With wine there is the added issue of time. There is only a certain moment in time where the wine will be drinkable. Wine will start at a value and will become more expensive as the date you will be able to drink it is closer. When it is not yet drinkable, it is seen as an investment.

After that it might still be sold at very high prices as collecters items. That wiskey(cognag?) they found on the south pole? Bet people will pay a LOT for that, but not to drink it.

Nowadays not many wines can be bought that you can store for a LONG time. Most wines are now sold when they can be drunk, where in te past you could buy a wine and store it yourself for many years.

Re:No One Would Notice

[RKThoadan]

I'm not a big wine fan, but that sounds like it would be worth a try. Thanks for the recommendation.

Re:No One Would Notice

[bickerdyke]

Common fallacy:
very few wines are suited for aging well... most actually become worse after a few years.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Mashdar]

Spitting is only for when you are tasting several varieties and are trying not to get drunk before bottle #14.

Re:No One Would Notice

[quasigenx]

You can't "age" a wine after it's been bottled. The aging process depends on being in contact with the wine barrel.

Re:No One Would Notice

[tehcyder]

The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal relative to the price.

You are confusing two different things: one, whether you can tell the difference between two wines, and two, whether the wine is worth its price.

I've worked in a wine seller where one of the perks of the job is being able to sample the odd glass of really good wine, and I can tell you that there is a definite difference between (say) a very good £40 wine and a fantastic £400 one.


I wouldn't myself actually spend the extra £360 on the more expensive wine, but it's just wrong to say that there is no real difference.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't how old the wine is that determines the quality but from which year. So buying wine from a bad year and storing it doesn't equal buying wine from a good year and using it right away, even if they end up being the same age.

Re:No One Would Notice

[geoffrobinson]

This is why I'm a beer snob. You can get the best beer in the world for $12 or less for a 750 mL bottle.

And yes, I would put up a fine beer next to a fine wine any day of the week. They just are different.

Re:No One Would Notice

[novium]

There's a huge difference between a wine that's 20 years old and one that's two or three years old.Hell, just the tannins alone... In fact, that's a good reason to purchase a better wine; when it's young, it's likely to be about as good as a more ordinary bottle, but it'll age so much better. With some of the best wines, you never see them at their best until they're ten or twenty or thirty years old.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Jeremy Erwin]

This is why I'm a beer snob. You can get the best beer in the world for $12 or less for a 750 mL bottle.

Samuel Adams Utopias sells for $150. However, It may transcend the definition of beer.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly a case of "why should I bother?" If to truly appreciate the $400 bottle of wine, I must spend time sip-spitting expensive wine, why should I bother? When I drink wine, I want to enjoy it, I don't want to sit there and analyze it. I certainly don't want to be spitting it out. And if the end result is, when I drink a moderately priced wine, I long for that $400 wine instead, well haven't I just shot myself in the foot? I'd rather be able to enjoy the cheap wine.

Re:No One Would Notice

[wed128]

The difference between $7 vodka and $80 vodka is the hangover the next day.....

although the difference between the $25 and $80 vodka is negligible.

Re:No One Would Notice

[ubercam]

If I were to claim to be a snob, I'd have to say that I'm more of a beer snob than anything else. As such, I whole-heartedly agree about the beer vs. wine comment. However the "best beer in the world" is also entirely subjective. The only beers I've seen in a large bottle like you describe are Heineken and some Belgian beers (some of which are corked like Champagne!). To some people, that "best beer" might be Labatt Lite. I, for one, do not share the same opinion.

I'm more into the Polish beer at the moment, Tyskie in particular. Of the other Polish varieties available here, I find Zywiec to be too heavy and filling, Lezajsk is alright and Zubr is way too malty for my taste. My previous favourites have been German beers (lived there 2 years) but the selection of German beer is very limited here and it all tastes like it's been sitting on the shelf for 6 months, compared to what it tasted like over there.

It did take some time to adjust my palette from the relatively flavourless swill available here in North America to the more intensely flavoured, hoppy stuff available over there, but I'm enlightened now and will never go back. These days I rarely ever drink more than 2-3 beers in a week so I want to enjoy the taste as much as possible. At $4.25 (compared to $3.50 for a regular sized domestic beer) from the bar we frequent, an ice cold, half litre, Polish beer is exactly what the doctor ordered.

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you can afford. A few years ago, I would never have paid that much for a beer because I couldn't afford to. Cost vs. quality is always an issue in nearly every purchase we make. We love car analogies here, so in brand new cars, the manufacturers have been really focusing on the quality of their interiors. Yeah, the interior in a Mercedes is going to be as good as it gets, but a decently equipped VW is still very nice, comfortable and full of nifty features, with a significant cost savings. Sure you might not get the voice activated back massage or the heated steering wheel and shifter knob, but are those things ALONE really worth the extra 30 grand? Sames goes for buying the latest and greatest iteration of the i7 vs. looking at the prices and finding the best price point for your budget. There's always 1-3 CPUs right at the top of the price ladder and then #4 which is like 1/2-1/4 the price of the top end. That's the one most people, including myself, will buy.

Re:No One Would Notice

[JiffyPop]

Are you trying to send a secret message with your misspellings? They have a surprisingly high density in your post... Try Firefox, it has a built-in spell check feature when typing in textarea inputs.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

What this guy said. I've had the exact same experience, right up to the multi-hundred dollar bottles that were bought on someone else's dime. And, before you whine about how "it only tasted good because you knew it was expensive", this was during a blind taste test. I thought, "wow, this is a fucking great wine" (and, I thought it was inexpensive, since we were theoretically only supposed to bring wines up to $40-50 or so). It turns out it was an aged Auraujo Eisele Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon... the guy who brought it just has more wine than he knew what to do with, so he shares it.

Re:No One Would Notice

[Falconhell]

Whilst I drink very little wine, (And have never liked red wine at all) in recent years
I have indulged in a little red supplied by some fellow (Fairly rich) wine loving club members.

The good ones all seem to be more than 5 years old.

(good ones means I like the taste, I dont have the wine vocabulary of an expert)

The very best ones taste great. I can hardly be described as someone with an refined pallette!

But now anything cheap tastes like vinegar!

Re:No One Would Notice

[geoffrobinson]

One other thing beer has over wine besides price. There is a greater range of flavors.

Re:No One Would Notice

[OrangeCatholic]

Like the hi-fi market, experts know the difference. One of the biggest factors is aeration. An expensive wine ($20+ U.S.) will benefit from being opened up to, and exceeding, 24 hours before tasting.

The real experts know the difference immediately. They can taste the stiffness, and know that it will degrade into softness over time.

For the rest of us, proper aeration is required for the soft "flower" to "bloom".

Re:No One Would Notice

[OrangeCatholic]

They make un-oaked reds for you folks. Bedell First Crush or Beaujolais.

But seriously, how can you stand it, when all the taste is on the back-end and none on the tip? Un-oaked reds taste GREAT, if you give them five seconds...

C14 isn't used for rocks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the limit of C-14 dating is approximately 40,000 years BP, it isn't really all that useful for dating rocks unless you are a young-earth creationist.

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[PaintyThePirate]

This is the point I also came here to make. Samarium-neodymium dating is used for older stuff, like those rocks.

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[Rei]

Beat me to it. Not useful for rocks unless they're very young. And that claim was made all the worse by linking to an article about rocks hundreds of millions of years old.

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[einhverfr]

The other problem is that C14 dating is only valid for organic matter. It's not valid for coal deposits because trace radioactive elements screw things up and make the rocks appear far younger than they are. This is one thing young earth creationists capitalize on....

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[Rei]

Erm, sorry -- just checked the article again, and it was about rocks mulitple *billions* of years old. They were dated by neodymium-samarium dating

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's useless for coal because coal is typically more than 10 half-lives of C14 old. The longest estimates for C14 accuracy seem to range up to 60,000 years (mentioned over on Wikipedia).

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[ombwiri]

Researchers say? Really? No clue as to where they are from or what they have been trained to do? Because it is sure as hell not anything that uses carbon dating.

Yes the article gives some caveats but it really isn't enough. C14 dating really, really isn't as simple as it looks. As an archaeological scientist (well I trained as one) the one thing that was drummed into our heads was that C14 cannot be accuratly used past 1950 and that C14 dating is a science based upon statistics and will never, ever give you one year as an answer.

The reason C14 can't be used past 1950 is that the whole thing is based upon the idea that in the past the amount of atmospheric C14 has always been the same as in 1950. We know this isn't true however. Since 1950 nuclear testing has really screwed with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and we know that in the past C14 varied as we have ways of checking (this is mostly done by counting tree rings, I know high tech).

So we have adjust the results we get based upon what we know about the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. I'm going off track here so I'll just point you in the direction of a website that shows how C14 dates are calibrated. http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html#calibration

The main reason that this research is suspect is that C14 really isn't suited to this sort of fine detail work. I'm sure that you can date wine but the result you would get would be pointless. You could probably get a 95% certainty of the wine coming from a certain date range but that range would be so wide as to be of no use. If you want to get a precise date then you can but only by dropping your certainty to an amount to low to have any confidence in. Your magin for error would be astronomical.

I never thought I'd say it but who approves these non-articles to appear on /.?

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[zippthorne]

Wait.. are you saying that coal doesn't have a biological origin?

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[Half-pint HAL]

Since 1950 nuclear testing has really screwed with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere

This is exactly the point. The wild variation in C14:C12 gives each year's harvest a "fingerprint". Allegedly. This is not archaeology.

Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...

[paiute]

FYI, carbon dating is now mostly done by AMS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator_mass_spectrometry

In the old days, radiocarbon dating was done by scintillation counting of a sample and correction for background. AMS is a mass spec technique and counts by actually counting 12C/13C/14C atoms in the sample.

Alternate Headline

[wjc_25]

95% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.

Re:Alternate Headline

[Tablizer]

95% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.

Don't tell the Creation Institute about that study.
     

Re:Alternate Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

95% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.

So they are all fake?

Re:Alternate Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those wine growers are about as honest as the tobacco miners.

The finer things in life.

[voodoo cheesecake]

This is why I only drink Jolt and 151.

Re:The finer things in life.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Man, that's hardcore. Do you shit yourself in your sleep?

Re:The finer things in life.

[voodoo cheesecake]

Nah, I call it diet moonshine though.

Old Enough?

[BobPaul]

As I understand it, carbon dating doesn't work well for young items. Are vintage wines old enough for accurate carbon dating?

Re:Old Enough?

[rnaiguy]

There is a trick that can be used to date things from the 2nd half of the 20th century. Nuclear bomb testing caused a spike in atmospheric C14, which is rapidly decreasing as it equilibrates with the oceans (among other things). The actual radioactive decay is insignificant on this timescale, and so we can get a pretty good idea if the grapes used to make the wine were plucked after nuclear testing began, and if so what year they were harvested. This technique has also been used in biology to date the "birth" of cells in human tissues.

Re:Old Enough?

[EL_mal0]

It sounds like you're thinking of tritium (3H).

Re:Old Enough?

[rnaiguy]

No, I'm thinking of C14. Which is produced when all the excess neutrons from a nuclear blast smash into atmospheric nitrogen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

here's the biology reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/33/12564.long

these guys pioneered the tech for use in biology, but then it was popularly applied to wines.

Re:Old Enough?

[rgmoore]

No, he's right that it's 14C. Tritium gets incorporated into water, so it gets spread around very quickly and regularly. It also has a relatively short half life (~12 years). 14C released in nuclear testing mostly winds up as CO2, which gets pulled out of the air fast enough to serve as a useful marker but not so fast that it isn't still useful decades after the end of atmospheric testing.

Re:Old Enough?

[BobPaul]

No, some brief Googling along with the second page of the article confirms hist statements.

Re:Old Enough?

[geminidomino]

I saw that episode of White Collar too! ;)

Re:Old Enough?

[interkin3tic]

GP isn't completely wrong though. Tritiated thymidine was commonly used to label cells which were actively taking up DNA and were therefore proliferating. BrdU is more commonly used today. Both are somewhat more convenient than utilizing nuclear bomb tests.

I find the article very interesting given the history of adult neurogenesis. Pasko Rakic, who communicated the paper, was initially very skeptical of those results:

At the time, the new technique of labelling a cell with thymidine to determine the birth date of neurons was used in newborns, since adult animals were not thought to create new neurons. But Altman decided to try the technique with adults. He published several papers in the most reputable scientific journals, claiming that new neurons are formed in the brains of adult rats, cats, and guinea pigs–a discovery that Nottebohm later made with canaries. Because the techniques Altman used were primitive, however, they were open to reasonable doubt. It was a classic example of a discovery made ahead of its time. At first, Altman was ignored, then he was ridiculed, and finally, after failing to receive tenure at M.I.T., he moved to Purdue. With no recognition, he was quickly forgotten. The field almost dried up. A decade later, Michael Kaplan, a researcher at Boston University and later at the University of New Mexico, used an electron microscope to supply more compelling evidence that several parts of the adult brain, including the cortex, also produced neurons. He, too, met resistance from researchers who did not find his work convincing. ("Those may look like neurons in New Mexico,'' Kaplan remembers Rakic saying at the time. "But they don't in New Haven.") Kaplan had published his findings in important journals and even suggested a novel way to test the phenomenon in humans, but he, too, was ignored, and he left the field.

source

Rakic has admitted he was wrong, and I think his criticisms weren't unfounded. The immunohistochemistry demonstrating they are real neurons, for one thing, adresses some of the major concerns he had with the previous studies. Still, it's interesting: the "novel way" to test it in humans was look at brain sections of people who had been treated for cancer with BrdU, proposed decades ago, at the time it was considered too difficult. The study you cited does that and also uses nuclear tests to further illustrate the point.

Re:Old Enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote the summary:

"Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are"

My Geologist Husband: "What?!?!?! Carbon dating is NOT used for finding the age of the oldest rock! Radiocarbon dating is good to 60,000 years at best. The half-life of C-14 is about 5700 years! There are a number of different techniques, like argon-argon (1250 million years half-life), but we almost never use C-14, unless you are a creationist or looking at peat moss.

Re:Old Enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

My thought exactly. Followed by: if it was featured in a TV series it's got to be theoretical impractical nonsense. I'm looking at you CSI!

Re:Old Enough?

[EL_mal0]

That makes sense. I was thinking of tritium, which is used to date groundwater - or at least let you know if an aquifer has recharged in the last 50 years, or so. Thanks for setting me straight; I learned something today!

Re:Old Enough?

[geminidomino]

My thought exactly. Followed by: if it was featured in a TV series it's got to be theoretical impractical nonsense. I'm looking at you CSI!

An even worse (and more entertaining, IMNSHO) offender: Burn Notice.

Re:Old Enough?

[complete loony]

Personally I was thinking of C4... but then I watch far too many action flicks.

Re:Old Enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "Vintage" means an exceptional year. Once written on a bottle it only mean that it contains some wine of that year, and may be mixed with other years. This is how I could afford a 1963 Port. Of course the wine maker will state this is to add or create a unique new taste.
Admittedly when bottled close to the pickup year, the vast majority will only contain that year. But if you buy a wine that was bottled 10+ years after it was made their is no way to be sure if it contains more than a few drops. And this is considered legal practice (if ethically questionable).

Re:Old Enough?

[geekoid]

Care to give examples?

C14 is used for dating purposes in many areas. In fact I was surprised at White Collars accuracy on the subject.

What I do know that they talk about on Burn Notice has always been accurate.

Neither are perfectly accurate, but I haven't found that many glaring issues with either.

Re:Old Enough?

[geekoid]

Sadly, the term 'Carbon Dating' gets tossed around when referring to ANY radiometric dating.

Re:Old Enough?

[geekoid]

CSI is one mask pull away from being Scooby Doo. With all do respect to Velma.

Re:Old Enough?

[geminidomino]

Never said it wasn't accurate. I was commenting more on the impracticality of it, and the fact that it's more entertaining than CSI.

I will cop to being a fan of both Burn Notice and White Collar (and I hate USA Network's screwy season schedule =\) but some of BN goes overboard.

For example, since you asked for one: Modifying the circuitry in a cell phone to make a bug.

Easier solution: Cheap sell phone with "auto answer"(where the phone automatically picks up after X rings if a headset is connected) and silent mode. Chop the speaker off and replace the mic with a larger/more sensitive one. Hide under car seat.

No soldering and far less training needed. :)

Re:Old Enough?

[geminidomino]

I cant believe I just typed "sell phone."

I think I've been dealing with Sprint's hard-sell for too long...

Re:Old Enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just in White Collar, it's in SuperFreakonomics too :)

Excellent work.

[deniable]

1. Buy a bunch of expensive wine
2. Carbon date a small sample.
3. Dispose of the rest thoughtfully.

Some days I'm proud to be an Australian.

Re:Excellent work.

[deniable]

Whoosh

Fixed that for you.

Re:Excellent work.

[R3coiler]

I'm going to have to try this with beer. For science, of course.

Re:Excellent work.

[Anonymous Coward]

That whooshed me. Please explain.

Re:Excellent work.

[deniable]

OK Pauline, How was changing 'Dispose of the rest thoughtfully' to 'Have giant pissup' fixing my original post?

Re:Excellent work.

[kramulous]

Pauline only drinks beer or cask wine. /explanation

Re:Excellent work.

[kirill.s]

1. Buy a bunch of expensive wine

No wonder that didn't result in a PROFIT!!!!.

Re:Excellent work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas... your Australian science is most great in it's intentions and results.

Re:Excellent work.

[dkf]

1. Buy a bunch of expensive wine

No wonder that didn't result in a PROFIT!!!!.

You're using the wrong definition of "profit".

Re:Excellent work.

[troll8901]

Have giant pissup

It's not what you think, dear omniscient moderator. "Piss" in Australian slang means drinking alcohol. "Have giant pissup" means have a great alcoholic feast. That's it.

Re:Excellent work.

[Chris Burke]

I'm going to have to try this with beer. For science, of course.

Me too. But I lack the equipment for carbon dating, so I'll have to skip that part. I guess I'll have to make up for it with volume!

Re:Excellent work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Thoughtfully, with thoughts of old or near, I'm sure some of it would make me very thoughtful. I'm getting very thoughtful right now. Thoughtfully, I should swallow the rest of this wine thoughtfully and save some for tomorrow's pig meat dinner.

Re:Excellent work.

[bingoUV]

Very interesting. I checked this and this and surprisingly, you are right. But how can Australians use the same word for these 2 things: don't they have any sense of linguistic hygiene?

hmm can we use it on ideas?

[h00manist]

i'd like to know just how old are some things people in washington have in their heads

Re:First

[Anarki2004]

Why hasn't slashdot implemented a filter that eliminates "first post" asshats? I don't think it would be all that complicated.

now mod me offtopic

More accuracy

[zogger]

Ya know, they'd get way more accuracy measuring these fine wines age if they used oxygen depleted gold plated monster cables on their equipment...

Re:More accuracy

[nohumor]

i too hate the super expensive "gold plated monster cable" when a cheap $10 would do just fine but lets not blame monster for inflating wine prices

English

[Fnord666]

Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits ...

Would someone please translate this into English? Oh, and if this was the editor's attempt, I would hate to see the submission!

Re:English

[Cryacin]

What? he card read good!

Dammit

[__aagctu1952]

Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are.

The summary writer fails basic science. Carbon dating isn't used, and can't be used for dating rocks. Various forms of radiometric dating can be used, but carbon dating? Hell no. In the words of Youtube's creationism debunker Potholer54, "because there's no f-ing carbon in it!".

Re:Dammit

[rgmoore]

"because there's no f-ing carbon in it!".

There are plenty of rocks that contain carbon. Good examples include limestone, marble, coal, and oil shale. The problem isn't lack of carbon. The problem is that the half life of 14C is very short compared to the age of most rocks, so there isn't enough radiocarbon left to date.

Re:Dammit

[Antique Geekmeister]

What would you call coal? Or diamond? Or graphite? A fluid?

Carbon dating isn't used for coal because it's typically far older than the roughly 50,000 years carbon dating is usable for, and because for most of it the source of carbon may be far, far older, rather than containing C14 released into the biosphere, especially via the atmosphere, from radioactive decay. It's not not because there's "no carbon".

The mishandling of C14 claims used by creationists is its own amusing topic: please don't confuse the two.

Re:Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think both of you are appropriately responding to a claim that rocks don't have carbon in them, but I think his initial point was directly related to the article linked in the original summary; specifically, in regard to dating some of the oldest rocks found which would require isotopes with half-lives several orders of magnitude greater than the measly ~5730 years of C14.

Re:Dammit

[InEnacWeTrust]

The summarry fails at more than basic science, it also fails at basic wine science. The year written on the label in very often **not** the year the grape actually grew but the year the wine was bottled. Wich can be anywhere between a few weeks to many years later. I'm a little worried nobody mentioned that before.

Re:Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you carbon date rocks? Because carbon dating is made of rocks!
This makes sense in some way.

Re:Dammit

[geekoid]

Diamond doesn't have carbon in it?

Maybe you are wrong about the reason you can't use it?

Re:Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

More specifically, you use longer-lived isotopic systems, such as U-Pb and K-Ar. C-14 decays too fast (a half-life of "only" ~5000 years). After ~10 half-lives it's very difficult to apply a radiometric technique because the parent radioactive isotope is so rare. Rocks do contain plenty of carbon (e.g., coal and limestone), but it is depleted in C-14 to very small amounts. C-14 dating is used for archeological stuff and other materials that are <100000 years old.

Escalation of certainty

[xarium]

"The team of researchers think "vintage fraud" is widespread..."

Eh, "think"?
But the headline sounds so certain.

"According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be..."

Ah. "estimated". Nowhere do they even mention running the tests in anger. Only proving the tests work when calibrated to known values.

The reporter left it till the end to admit, and /. reports it as an absolute truth. Disingenuous at best.

carbon dating problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby that can be historically verified. He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?) that messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets. Carbon-14 dating isn't all its cracked up to be.

Re:carbon dating problems

[Stormwatch]

He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?)

Why the question mark there? FYI, France is notorious for its love of nukes.

Re:carbon dating problems

[Zedrick]

> I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives
> very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby
> that can be historically verified.

You must have misunderstood something. Of course it has to be calibrated, but it doesn't need any historical context.

> He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?) that
> messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets.

Yes, you did most certainly misunderstand what he was saying. C14 dating is not used to date anything less than 65 years of age, since the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been screwed up since 1945. It has nothing to do with French nukes though, no calibration or recalibration will help for stuff that has taken in C14 after 1945.

> Carbon-14 dating isn't all its cracked up to be.

It's exactly what it's cracked up to be, a good way to determine the age of organic material. However, it might not be what people might imagine it to be - some kid of magic that can be use to date anything.

Re:carbon dating problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the question mark there?

I think he just wasn't sure whether he had the right ocean, or possibly the right spelling.

Anonymous Coward, you were right on both those counts: Mururoa, a site of French nuclear tests in the Pacific

Non-news ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

5% of wines? More like at least 5% of anything you can get.

Take any market, and you'll have, at the very least, 5% of fraudulent products. Off course, it's bigger in some other markets, but I'm pretty sure it's at least 5%.

This would be news if we got a way higher number. 5% sounds average to me.
Or, at least it's average compared to other markets like religion, where 100% of the offered 'goods' are fake ;)

Re:Non-news ...

[maxume]

I would be astonished if anywhere near 5% of Caterpillar heavy equipment sold in the United States was fake.

Re:Non-news ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I said in every market. Not in every brand.

Now, take the whole market of heavy equipment, not just cat, read the specs for all of them, and you'll surely find that at least 5% of those products don't match the promised specs.

Re:Non-news ...

[maxume]

Market enjoys a pretty broad definition. There is a market for 'Caterpillar Heavy Equipment in North America' that exists separately from the market for heavy equipment in the Americas, and so forth.

Re:Non-news ...

[LoverOfJoy]

Well, I think he's correct for any market as broad as wine, though you may have an argument for smaller niche markets.

Re:Non-news ...

[Bearhouse]

And I'd be astonished if less than 5% of the spare parts sold for Cats were not used or reman sold as 'new', or just outright fakes...

Re:Non-news ...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I collect bootleg Famicom carts.

So either i've got a %100 bootleg rating, because I specifically look for bootleg carts.

OR

I've got a %0 bootleg rating because all the carts I have are legitimately bootlegged material.

I'm confused, I need some wine and cheese.

Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Aargau]

It's always more interesting when there are multiple viewpoints on an issue, and I'm happy to take the contrary one. I've tasted 2 buck Chuck (quite good), and tasted $100-$1000 dollar bottles. There is actually a difference that's discernable by I'd guess at least 40% of wine drinkers, and while I'm open to the idea that we can replicate some of the properties of the top wines cheaply, and that certain top wines are counterfeited, I still posit that the top, expensive wines are an experience that are worth paying for, at least once or twice in one's life. To test, I'd recommend splitting among a few friends an Opus One from Costco for around $100, which can be 40% of the retail price. It's consistently a top wine and will enlighten you if you're in that sad, obsessive, minority of folks who care enough to spend crazy money on good wines :)

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I'm from Argentina. We produce some of the finest wines in the world, specially in Mendoza.
t,
Here, a cheap, average wine that most people drink at home with dinner retails at ~$9 (That is, 9 pesos, or 2.3 Dollars.)

A relatively good wine retails ~$20 (5.2 dollars). At $150 (39 dollars), you can get one of the finest wines you'll ever taste.

The funny thing is, while traveling to the USA, I've recognized bottles that Retail here for ~$35 (9 dollars), with tags of 250 dollars!

So, leaving that aside, yes, you can definitely tell the difference, but it's not all about money. You can definitely tell the difference between any two wines. But, with wine, price is not always = quality. I've tested $200 wines that I didn't like (like the Lamadrid Gran Reserva Malbec) , and $20 (5 dollars) wines that I loved (Like Benjamin Nieto Cabernet Sauvignon)

So, money plays a big role, but there's not a clear relationship between price and quality. It's more of a threshold ... you won't find really good wines very cheap. But above a certain price, there are good and bad wines at a very ample price range

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[ravenspear]

I have tasted high end wines. I do enjoy wine. I just find the diminishing returns of price to be seriously in play once you get past $50-$100 or so. Is a $500 bottle of wine better than a $50 bottle? In most cases yes. Is it actually 10 times better? Almost never.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[m509272]

We have wine nearly every day. There's no need to spend more than $100 and there's plenty of wines under $60. I'm talking wine store not restaurant. The number of wines that I've had over $200 that I've went wow this is amazing is pretty much zero. There were a handful of wines in the $100-$200 and those wines are at that price because they got high ratings which drove them up. Before that they were sub $100. I've spoken to numerous winemakers and quite a number of them say we have to have a >$100 wine because so and so has one and people that know nearly nothing about wine but have a lot of money will buy just on price, that being expensive. Seek out the little brothers of wines like Grange which are considerably less in cost. The same holds true for some of the high end Spanish wines and some of the Italian wines. If the year is a good one for 20-40% of the flagship wine you get a really great bottle and that wine is being made from some of the same grapes in the high end wine. For $15-$30 there's probably a thousand good/very good wines. Yes, there are some really great finds for even less than that and even in a box. For parties, Powers Cabernet from Washington State is quite good. $6 bottle in a box, $13 in glass. Same wine. It boils down to one thing drink what you like regardless of cost but do try others when given the chance because you might be surprised on what you're missing. Go to wine tastings where you can taste the overpriced but more importantly try wines in the price range which you will spend when buying. It really irks me when people go from table to table and just taste the 1 or 2 most expensive wines at a table of 12-20.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[bbhack]

There is a spectrum from super-taster (a sommelier) to a non-taster (someone who likes, not just tolerates, McDs).

I don't know where I lie in the spectrum, except it's more taster than non. And I have never had anything better than about $100 retail.

A good wine must be matched to the food, and I don't begrudge someone with the money and desire to enjoy the expensive stuff, but I think I'm happy sticking well under $100, even though I would drop $50 at the store per week if my conscience would allow.

All of this assumes a fair market in wine, and the sellers are not taking advantage of and mocking the poseurs.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[teh dave]

Diminishing returns applies to most products though. Cars, computers, mobile phones, food, houses, clothing... And audio equipment. Most people can't appreciate the quality and faithful sound reproduction of a good audio system, which is a shame because if more people could, then more people would buy better equipment, and consequently, the really expensive stuff wouldn't be as expensive as it is.

Like with wine, I believe that most people would be able to hear the difference between the cheap $0.05 shit that Apple bundles with their products and an infinitely nicer pair of $60-$100 phones, if only they'd actually take the time to listen. Also like wine, being able to appreciate a $2000 set of headphones is not common. And again like wine, you don't know how bad Apple headphones are until you try something better.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[CrashandDie]

Mod parent up. The exact same thing is noticeable in France.

I love cooking with wine in quite a few different dishes and styles. I always used the cheapo wines I could find, and in southern France (as in, 30 miles from the Spanish border), a cheap wine is something you get between 1 EUR per 750ml bottle and 3-4 EUR per 5 litre box.

When I moved to the UK, the cheapest I could find began at 6-7 GBP. In France, most people drink (or should I say, absorb) 3 EUR bottles. They'll go for a 12 EUR bottle when they're feeling fancy. You rarely see people going for the 30+ EUR bottles, unless it's a dining party and you have to bring a gift.

The first time I tasted a 100+ GBP was in London. And yeah, sure, it was nice to have a penguin decant it and use a spotless napkin to absorb the couple of drops that would otherwise have hit the tablecloth, but for all intents and purposes, the 12 EUR wine will do just fine.

That being said, I agree with grandparent though. Going for a 4 digit wine is a once in a lifetime experience that people who can afford it should definitely pay up for. Make sure to bring a wine-knowledgeable friend with you that night too, that way if it tastes like crap and you don't know if you ought to start shouting, your mate will make that decision for you.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Tromad]

One winery I visit has a unique wine dispensing system so you can sample 1,2,or 4oz of $200 bottles of wine for a fraction of the full price. I've found the $20-40 bottle price point to be the biggest gamble. I've tasted many wines in this price range that were worse than 2 buck chuck. $40-60 more often has a noticeable quality improvement. Sometimes I find bottles above that price range that are higher quality, but more often than not I find myself paying more for a wine that isn't any better than a lot of the $40 bottles I've tried. Most bottles I purchase however are ~$15, because the quality may not be tier 1, but is still excellent. I've never tried Opus One; I'll be sure to take your advice.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[crazybit]

At Peru you can get a 2 lt. bottle of a fine Rose for about US$ 50, from one of our award winning companies. They are cheap because in this area of South America the climate and soil are exceptionally productive and abundant. One of them, Santiago Queirolo, has a 100 km2 Vineyard, in which they produce: Cabernet Sauvignon, Malbec, Syrah, Merlot, Chardonnay, Petit Verdot, Trebiano Bianco, Quebranta, Torontel. They produce wine since 1880.
You can see pictures here.

As Argentina, we sell great quality wines for a good price, it's the middlemen the ones who raise the price to the skies.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[adolf]

Hmm.

So, it's like beer, cigars, women, clothes, and cars. You often get what you pay for, but if you try a bit, you'll find that you can save a lot of money while getting a lot more.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Aargau]

Diminishing returns are a good metric for return on investment, but there's something unique about the best you've ever achieved. I guess a good analogy is (the obvious one, of course) women. Some people would never make the calculus that it's worth it to spend 5x as much effort chasing a 10 as an 8 (relative to one's rating system).

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Yup, I know. I've been to Peru. Beautiful country, and truly good wines.

But, to be honest, wine is not my favorite Peruvian export, if you know what I mean ;)

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your post, there are excellent wines that aren't all that expensive because of lacking pedigree.

I have never drunk an Argentinean wine, but some Chilean wines are quite decent. In the end the grape is the most important factor.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

The other reason wine is so cheap in Argentina/France/Spain is that we drink way too much red wine ;)

The only places in the world where I've seen people drinking red wine at a bar at 10 A.M are Buenos Aires, Madrid and Paris.

I've got to hand it to you people the finest Wine, Woman and Cheese are French.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Mr. Freeman]

"that way if it tastes like crap and you don't know if you ought to start shouting, your mate will make that decision for you."

If you don't know whether or not it's crap then how on earth can you say that drinking a $1000+ wine is something that you should pay for EVER? It's not a memorable experience if you have to be TOLD that it's a memorable experience. If you can't recognize the difference between a $20 and $1000 wine by yourself then there isn't any damn point in buying the $1000 bottle.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Totally agreed. It's not my intention to start a flame war here, but Argentinian wines are far superior to any Chilean wine you'll ever taste. One of the finest Chile has is El Gato Negro, and is nothing compared to even cheap Argentinian wines like Lopez or Norton clasico.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd, I looked up some of the wines you mentioned and the US prices of current releases is no where near what you quoted (well I wasn't sure if you were stating US or Ar dollars so my bad if I'm off base). Lamadrid Gran Reserva Malbec 2005 is a $22-30 US a bottle at a high volume discount outlet. Benjamin Nieto Cabernet Sauvignon doesn't seem to have any US distribution so I can't say (I'd buy some on a lark if I could find a source at the mentioned price of course).

Vintage is the crazy thing in the wine world. If you have the space, make youself a workable wine cellar, drink young wines and buy in those you like by the case and store them for 6-10 years. You'll be drinking high dollar wines when you start tapping into your storage at the cost of storage space. The whole wine game gets crazy when you get away form buying young wines, yea really crazy. I'm lazy, I just decant young wines!

Oddly enough I was buying an American Mertiage that was really pretty good and it cost me a whole $6.22 US a bottle. Sometimes you get a crazy situation where a really big retailer buys a metric ton of good wine and blows it out at a stupid cheap price, but it's rare. It was Cameron Hughes lot 150 and was a Sams Club exclusive if anybody can find any. Every once and a while you can buy a good cheap wine, but I just wish it was more often.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[DerekLyons]

But, with wine, price is not always = quality. I've tested $200 wines that I didn't like (like the Lamadrid Gran Reserva Malbec) , and $20 (5 dollars) wines that I loved (Like Benjamin Nieto Cabernet Sauvignon)

If cost != quality, why do your examples cite what like and don't like? Your likes != quality.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Peruvian wine is terrible, they don't really drink it unless it's terribly sweet or after it's been amazingly fortified into their version of Grappa, called Pisco. Pisco is actually worth drinking though.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[JWSmythe]

    That's because every time you've seen me in a bar at 10am, I'm still drinking from the night before, and it's a whole lot stronger than wine. :)

    Thank god for airport bars, or I'd never survive a trip sane.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[jgardia]

Yeah, a Gato Negro is us$2, one of the cheapest you can get in Chile. If you want to bash our wine, a least do it right. BTW, I'm answering just to remove the mod points I gave you.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[JWSmythe]

    You sir, need to be modded up. :)

    I agree totally. For a while, I was around a cigar smoking crowd. The smoked Cubans. I'd smoke them occasionally, but found some really great cigars just as good for $6/ea. While I won't say every one was a winner, it's a lot more satisfying to experience what's out there, rather than be told "You must do this, because it's the best, because it's the most expensive."

    If I drank my alcohol, dated women, wore clothes, and drove cars strictly on that basis, I'd not only be in debt up to my ears, but really, I wouldn't be all that happy knowing there's an excellent world of variety out there that doesn't cost $1,000/bottle.

    I do remember watching some show, where they spent an absolute fortune on a bottle of wine. It was handled by the [blah, blah] and sold at auction. In the end, they each took a sip and realized they'd just spent a fortune on vinegar. It's a lot better when you can sommelier, "That was terrible, bring me something that doesn't taste like a dog pissed on grapes and then it was bottled." :)

    I'm fairly sure (and have watched auctions that show it) that expensive wine isn't for drinking. It's an investment in a commodity that can be sold later for a profit. It seems they're best intended to never be tasted, and the real loser is the person who finally opens it to find out that they just bought a $1,000 bottle of crap that they can't even sell now.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I actually didn't even test the one when I was there, but it was a good line to setup my cocaine joke ;)

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

That $200 price was in Argentinian Pesos (52 dollars), That's a reserve 2004 I was talking about from the wine club, so, a little more expensive than the other younger wines under of the same label. Benjamin Nieto is exported, but under a different label (can't remember the name right now)

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Can't help it dude. We are like cats and mouses.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I could never survive to trip without tripping either ;)

And, agreed, the official Airport drink is Johnny Walker, BL

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[JWSmythe]

  I've found it looks best when I order for 3 people, and then take the drinks to the table as if I were expecting them. They catch on when all the drinks are gone within a minute or two, and I come back for the next round. Maybe they think I'm just a little crazy. It's usually two shots and a strong mixed drink. Bourbon, Scotch, Whiskey, Rum or Vodka. Whatever they may happen to have that's a decent brand (decent flavor, not necessarily expensive, for the sake of this thread)

    Of course, I have a high tolerance. The drinks on the plane are just a tease. Sometimes I order for everyone in my row, if they aren't drinking. :) "Stewardess, another found for my row-mates" :) I really prefer first class upgrades though. It makes it so much easier, and cheaper. At least I'm a quiet happy drunk. I'll drink enough, and take a nap until we land. I don't see how anyone can take a long flight sober. :)

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Trying too hard

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[frenchbedroom]

I'm French and I mostly agree about your quotes... under 3 €, it's everyday wine, good for cooking or drinking over everyday supermarket cheese. Above 3 € I can be confident that it'll be enjoyable, with a nice meal. But then up from 15€, I begin to wonder if it's really worth it, and that's where you really need to know something about it.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[digitalhermit]

I think anytime a product is based on the arbitrary opinion of "experts" then there's going to be this sort of price inflation. It's like calling out that the Emperor has no clothes. No one wants to run contrary to the expert and be considered rude or undiscriminating.

It's sort of like music or art or diamonds or bottled water. The actual product is quite plentiful. There are many unsigned bands that have better talent than the biggest pop stars. A top rated diamond is only valuable because some company decided to assign a rating to what is essentially a piece of rock. One bottle of bottled water is almost certainly no better than another, and in the US, it's no better than tap water.

Penn & Teller did a show about bottled water and how a "water expert" opinion influenced how people perceived a bottle of water. I suspect that some of the subjects were just playing along, but many actually believed that garden hose water was more delicate and refreshing than others because of the expert opinion. It would be interesting to see a study done for wine.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

For future reference, if the part in parentheses is US dollars, you'd be better writing it as:

$200 here ($52 USD)

That way it's clearer. I'm still not sure if that's what you meant as to most North Americans the $ sign means dollars, not pesos.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Teun]

But, to be honest, wine is not my favorite Peruvian export, if you know what I mean ;)

Yeah they have some fine women, but to call them an export product?

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[mpe]

think anytime a product is based on the arbitrary opinion of "experts" then there's going to be this sort of price inflation. It's like calling out that the Emperor has no clothes. No one wants to run contrary to the expert and be considered rude or undiscriminating.

Especially when the "experts" have their own jargon.

It's sort of like music or art or diamonds or bottled water. The actual product is quite plentiful. There are many unsigned bands that have better talent than the biggest pop stars. A top rated diamond is only valuable because some company decided to assign a rating to what is essentially a piece of rock.

The slogan "A diamond is forever" is intended to discourage resale of gem diamonds which would cause the bottom to drop out of the marker.

One bottle of bottled water is almost certainly no better than another, and in the US, it's no better than tap water.

In some cases it can actually be "tap water". It can also be of worst quality due to the lack of regulation of what can be in it.

Penn & Teller did a show about bottled water and how a "water expert" opinion influenced how people perceived a bottle of water. I suspect that some of the subjects were just playing along, but many actually believed that garden hose water was more delicate and refreshing than others because of the expert opinion.

The best part was the several differently described waters all from the same hose :)

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[feepness]

It's not a memorable experience if you have to be TOLD that it's a memorable experience.

Some of my most memorable experiences I can't recall at all.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[dkf]

I don't see how anyone can take a long flight sober.

I've given up on drinking on flights. I find I arrive in much better condition if I stay sober and still get some sleep. The problem with drinking on flights, especially long-haul, is that it dehydrates you and you're in a pretty dry environment anyway. FWIW, I stay off the coffee too on planes for the same reason, which is about the only time when I cut back there...

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[oji-sama]

For sure it's a memorable experience that you've just paid $1000 and can't taste the difference to $20 one. A learning experience as well ^.^

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[xenn]

I never drink...wi-i-i-ne.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[ZeroExistenZ]

The funny thing is, while traveling to the USA, I've recognized bottles that Retail here for ~$35 (9 dollars), with tags of 250 dollars

When I was in Chicago, in a pretty decent restaurant, we were served a 70-80usd wine. To me it tasted like the 5usd wines we get in supermarkets, it was a horrid dissapointment.

As a Belgian we are sortof central in Europe and have access to a wide palette of wines. I'm not a wine-fanatic nor claim in-depth wine knowledge, but I do taste a difference and appreciate one wine more as the other. I've tasted from the lower to the upper section and indeed, one wine isn't the other and generally (not always) the higher in price the more rich and complex the wine gets in taste which are high in demand but have are more limited as the mass produced wines. Yet you can get a 5-10$ Riesling which might be closer to your personal taste (it's very sweet, yet each year you have another wine, depending on harvarst and the weather) or want a more spicy wine with alot of depth.

Usually, people who taste wine and do the "wine weekends" on vinyards just enjoy the wines, and when they find some that they really enjoy (no two wines should taste the same) they stock up a dosen of them to share the experience or be able to relive the experience on occasion. The (un-)availability bumps up the price usually, but you have good wines that atste very good in a pretty medium price range.

They do not do it for the price-tag persé or virtual-dick display. But I get the sense this attitude isn't shared where there isn't such a variety of wines, even though the US seems to be producing more and more wine, the variety or the imports are not the same or in a simular price category if you'd roam around in Europe.

imho you drink wine because you like it and appreciate the experience, which is usually unique. Not to "look advanced", or try to fake to be "a connaisseur" nor to impress anybody.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[eulernet]

I'm french, and we have several types of wine in France.

Personally, I can't stand Bordeaux (which is funny, since my family name originally comes from this region).

I much prefer Bourgogne, and wines from Loire in second position.

My wife prefer rosés, like Cotes de Provence.

I guess you like only a few varieties of wine.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GospelHead821]

Cocaine!? I thought that you were setting up for an alpaca joke.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[lena_10326]

If you can't recognize the difference between a $20 and $1000 wine by yourself then there isn't any damn point in buying the $1000 bottle.

How are you supposed to recognize the difference between 2 wines if you only taste one?

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[lena_10326]

I saw that Penn & Teller episode and I saw a number of other TV "studies" on bottled water versus tap water, yet I still drink bottled and filtered water. Why? Because I taste and smell chlorine in the tap water. It's like when you unknowingly step in dog shit and notice you keep sniffing an odor. First you think you're imagining it, but it persists leading you to eventually turn over your foot to find dog shit underneath your sneaker. Penn & Teller are not going to convince me I don't smell chlorine in the water just as they could not convince me I don't smell dog shit if I stepped in it.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in Brazil, benefiting from our geographic position (near Chile and Argentina) and also producing wonderful white sparkling wines, I agree with gnualmafuerte.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[ezzzD55J]

Alpaca!? I thought he was setting up for a peruvian women joke!

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[MaxInBxl]

I second this. A wine-freak friend of mine gave me the following advice when I started getting into wine a while ago: if you're not sure if you should get the $5 or the $50 bottle at your local wine outlet, get both. taste them side by side. If you can't make any noticeable difference in quality then yes by all means stick with the $5 bottle! There's certainly no shame in that!

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[RKThoadan]

While that is certainly possible, you should get a friend and run an experiment to see if you really can smell the difference. Preferably 2 friends so you can make it double-blind.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Glonoinha]

Same goes for hookers.
Or so I've heard.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[bickerdyke]

Because quite often quality == 'likes' of some guy who wrote a book about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Parker,_Jr.#Impact_on_the_supply:_the_.22Parkerization.22_of_wine

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[bickerdyke]

shouldn't have linked blindly to the english translation...

The given link is less critic of the trend of not trying to produce "good" wines, but rather producing wines that Mr Parker is going to like.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[will_die]

For the price there are a couple of reason for that. In the US wine is still considered a "fancy" drink where price can be used to determine quality. Since that mind set is around a cheap wine will not sell, so when wines are imported the prices are jacked up. If you go to wine producing area of the US you can pick up cheap bottles under $4 with no problem since people drink more wine and consider it no different then beer.
Also restaurants are the worse place to consider the price of wines, in the US restaurants need to charge around 4 times the cost for the proper markup and profit. So for that $20 bottle, what people use to expect to pay for a good bottle, you had a $5 bottle.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Bakkster]

Most people can't appreciate the quality and faithful sound reproduction of a good audio system, which is a shame because if more people could, then more people would buy better equipment, and consequently, the really expensive stuff wouldn't be as expensive as it is.

But still more expensive than the average person could afford. The cost of high-end audio equipment isn't due to high manufacturing costs that would be reduced with scale, it's due to using high quality and accurate components. Transformers, headphone driver coils, etc are pretty much a fixed cost, and they're damn expensive. Particularly when your'e talking about balanced audio paths, you need to screen your parts so you have nearly identical high quality parts within each system, which is difficult in mass production.

Sure, the cost would come down, but not to consumer-range for daily use on the subway or at the gym. I use $5 Sony earbuds because they were cheap, comfortable, and stay on my ears. I don't have enough times where the desire for high-fidelity audio outweighs the risk of damage to a component that costs as much as my MP3 player. Particularly since I would notice the digital compression artifacts anyway, so the price of the headphones would be a waste on the limited quality increase.

Sure, give me a collection of vinyl (before compression forced the signal headroom down to about 3dB), a hi-fi turntable, low harmonic distortion amp, and $2k reference headphones and I'd be in heaven. However, until somebody gives me that cash and I don't have a better use for it, I can get by just fine with what I have.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[will_die]

Being a little hard on McDonald the Big Rosti is a really delicious sandwich.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

By all means cut back on coffee if you're hoping to sleep on the plane, but if you're worried about dehydration you needn't avoid coffee. Even with the mild diuretic properties, coffee still produces a net hydrating effect. Alcohol is a different matter, shorts can result in a loss of hydration, one should be fine, multiple shots will leave you dehydrated unless you're using mixers, but beer or wine will hydrate you and largely counteract their diuretic effect so a few beers should be fine.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Jeremy Erwin]

When I was in Chicago, in a pretty decent restaurant, we were served a 70-80usd wine.

Probably a 35 dollar bottle that was marked up.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Red Flayer]

When I was in Chicago, in a pretty decent restaurant, we were served a 70-80usd wine. To me it tasted like the 5usd wines we get in supermarkets, it was a horrid dissapointment.

Buying wines in a restaurant is always a ripoff.

Typically, here are the markups for wines:

Wholesale: $X
Retail (liquor store): $2X
Retail (restaurant): $4X

So a little napkin calculation at the restaurant should tell you that an US$80 wine at a restaurant wholesales for $20, and you can buy it at a liquor store for $40.

It sounds like you had a particularly bad experience, though. One thing to keep in mind is that the US palate (in general) for wines is different from the palate in other countries. In general, we like our wines sweet and fruity... and as far as I've noticed, that tends to be the profile of cheap wines the world round.

That said, if I'm eating nice rare red meat with some spicy sides, I do enjoy a California fruit bomb wine like a Zin or some of the Cabs out there.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[novium]

Everyone can find cheap wine under $4 in the US:heck, what else is the infamous two buck chuck? In the Napa Valley (etc), though, yes, people in the wine business drink a lot more wine and are passionate about it without it being some mysterious, mystical thing. But mostly? They're not going to waste their time drinking $4, since they'll have cases of really good wine stashed in odd corners. A perk of working in the industry. (And they'll especially be avoiding the cheaper wine, because most of it's grown down in the Inland Empire).

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[geekoid]

"I'm from Argentina. We produce some of the finest wines in the world,"
hahahahaha .. No.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[geekoid]

Except wine goes up in value over time, unlike everything else you list.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

We are the world's 5th biggest Wine Exporter. The whole world enjoys our wines.

Now, where are you from? Chile, California, or what other region with Inferior wines and ladies?

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[White Shade]

It depends on where the previous poster lives... I grew up drinking well water, which was as cool and pure as you can get pretty much, so I find myself being fairly sensitive to what's in city water. Some places I've been, the city water tastes fine, other places the water has a distinct smell and taste, which if you're used to how water "should" taste, is really hard to miss.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought was "Alpaca wool?"

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Wow! Really? You have wines in France? ;)

Not only you guys have wine, there's a reason most varieties are named after French regions.

France still produces the best wine in the world, period.

Regardless of what the ignorant gringos say, France knows how to live. In fact, the only thing I don't like about France is that they won't let us use their names anymore (Why do I have to say "blue cheese" instead of just Roquefort?

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[misterooga]

I need a car analogy please.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Anonymous Coward]

The sign is attested in business correspondence between the British, Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans in the 1770s, as referring to the Spanish-Mexican peso,[1][2] known as "Spanish dollar" or "pieces of eight" in British North America where it was adopted as U.S. currency in 1785, together with the term "dollar" and the $ sign.
The origin of the "$" sign has been variously accounted for. Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation is that it is the result of the evolution of the Spanish and Mexican scribal abbreviation "ps" for pesos. This theory, derived from a study of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century manuscripts, explains that the s gradually came to be written over the p developing a close equivalent to the "$" mark."

That's from Wikipedia

So, it's definitely Pesos, not dollars. The Gringos, off course, think the world revolves around them.

The international way to refer to Argentinian Pesos is AR$ or ARS and for USA is U$D or USD.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[DerekLyons]

If the OP was someone even remotely like the person you link to, you'd have a point. Since he isn't, you're just another ignorant jackass who mistakenly thinks that because he's got enough intelligence to cut and paste a link that means he has a clue.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[natehoy]

A lot of that depends on the bottle and the tap.

P&T used a garden hose out back of a nice restaurant. A critical factor is how good the water is in that restaurant's municipal supply. If it's not too terribly chlorinated, it might have lacked a heavy chlorine taste or smell, and therefore the absence of a really strong flavor allowed P&T to "invent" a flavor in the drinker's minds. I did chuckle at that episode, while fully recognizing that in that context I probably would have fallen for the exact same thing. Even after having seen the episode, I still might. :)

Personally, I can't tell the difference between tap and most bottled with the water here, but the tap water around here is actually pretty good. Our bottled water in the company bubbler is actually good-quality spring water (Poland Springs), but once I fill up my Nalgene, I literally could not tell you from taste whether I used the spring water dispenser or the drinking fountain.

In other areas, especially in more urban areas, the tap water is much more heavily chlorinated. I find it needs to be at least filtered in those areas (quick financial tip: a cheap filter makes a big difference, and is one hell of a lot cheaper than bottled water over time).

On the other hand, a lot of bottled water is actually chlorinated tap water that has been bottled and stored in plastic for various amounts of time. The advantage being that it's always the same tap water, so when you open a bottle of Deer Park or Evian, you always know what you are going to get. Municipal tap water, but always from the same municipality so any flavor is going to be relatively consistent from bottle to bottle.

It's rather like people going to a strange city and eating at McDonalds because they know the burger they buy is going to taste exactly like the last hundred burgers they bought from McDonalds. There are local restaurants that are almost certainly going to have better quality food, but they'll have their own take on a hamburger that you might or might not like.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[hairyfeet]

What is sad is your "dog pissed on grapes and then it was bottled" wine would probably cost a mint! After all it works for Cat Shit Coffee why not for dog piss wine?

To put it in a traditional /. car analogy, it is like when I used to clean out the pockets of the local college kids in the 80s. They thought because they had used daddies credit card to buy the most expensive sports car on the lot that automatically made them the best. They'd take one look at my primered all to hell 71 Le Mans and laugh. After the fools plopped their money down I'd lock the front brakes and heat up the wide tires and let that 455 roar. That old bitch may have only cost me $800 but she'd nearly stand straight up if I wanted her to and the only time I'd been beat in a 5 mile stretch was by a buddy testing out his new blower.

I learned a looooong time ago with vehicles price don't mean shit, as I'd seen $1000 cars that were fucking monsters and $50,000 cars that looked bad ass but weren't worth a shit. From the sounds of this thread wine is the same way, which don't surprise me. A fool and their money and all that.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[eulernet]

Regardless of what the ignorant gringos say, France knows how to live.

Alas, french also know how to die.
My favourite neighbour died of cirrhosis, since he drank 2 bottles of -cheap- wine every day (probably for his last 30 years), he was smoking too.

About cheese, it's normal to protect the name, otherwise everybody would sell cheaper cheeses (and probably of much worst quality).

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[lena_10326]

Water in rural upstate new york tasted clean. Water in florida (west palm beach, orlando, and panama city) literally tasted like sand water. It was horrible and had a cloudy appearance. Water in kansas city tasted like chlorine. Water inside seattle also tastes like chlorine, but it is not as bad as kansas city. There is big difference so many of these "studies" are bullshit because they cherry pick the regions with good municipal filtration systems.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[lena_10326]

Restaurants often have water filtration systems connected directly to the water line, which would invalidate the test. A test should be done with a line going to residence without a filter.

Btw, I do drink tap water if it's filtered. At my job we have a large filter and I know it works because the filtered water has no taste yet the tap water does (I've tasted both to compare).

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[JWSmythe]

    Oh, I totally agree with your car analogy.

    My car is still in excellent condition. A few simple cosmetics would bring it to show car quality, but I enjoy driving it more than polishing it for people to judge. :) It sold for something like $38k new. I bought it about 2 years old at about 18k miles for about $25k. 10 years later, it's market value is somewhere around $12k to $15k depending on the market and buyer.

    I've only done a little tweaking to it. I love cars, but I don't love the idea of dropping all my money into it.

    Over the years, I've had almost everyone want to race me. Sometimes I will, sometimes I won't. It's all in what mood I'm in, and where I am. Crowded residential streets are not a good place to flex my car-muscle, no matter what the other driver thinks. For those that I have run with, ya, it doesn't matter how much you spent on your car, it matters to what it is. I've beaten or matched just about everyone who's tried to play with me (beaten more often than not). I don't care if your car cost $1k or $100k, the more important part is what the vehicle really is.

    I upset an instructor at a closed road course once. Technically, I had to be in the "Beginner" class, because I had never run at that track before. One instructor had an unmodified Z06, and we had a lot of fun, and he had some good advice to give me (like, your car has ABS, use it! Come in hot, stand on the brakes until just before you turn, and then power out of the turns). The upset instructor had dropped something like $100k a BMW. He was outfitted with twin turbos, roll cage, racing seats, and ... well, I didn't really care to remember. :) He made comments about my car braking better than his. Then about how I had so much more torque that I could pull out of turns so much faster than him. Then about how my handling was better than his. His only comment was that his car was lighter, so it should go faster, but even on the fastest part of the course I'd blow through at over 100mph, where he was just peaking up to about 90mph. At the time, mine was still stock. Why would you drop so much money into something to have it still not quite as good as the car you want it to be like, when you could have just bought the better car for cheaper.

    When I was a kid, I started racing on a 1/4 mile paved oval, in the "spectator" class. That was basically anyone with a street legal car and helmet could run while the serious racers were taking a break. It was close by, and my mechanic raced there too, so it was a lot of socializing, with some racing involved. There was a guy with a sand rail/dune buggy, with a slightly modified v6 in it, geared for torque, but not a lot of top end speed. He'd kick everyone's butts from the start because he had so little weight. I should mention, I was driving an '82 Firebird that started life with a v6 and I swapped in a Chevy 350 that I modified as I went. :)

  (rolling back around to the topic)

  Why buy a $1k bottle of wine, when you can get a $20 bottle of better quality? Oh, it doesn't have the name, and you can't show the bottle to other wine snobs and say "Oh, we'll be drinking [the $1k bottle] tonight."

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[OrangeCatholic]

True, but a $50 bottle will taste better the following day.

So you should really open both and taste them tomorrow for an accurate sample.

If you taste them immediately, the $5 bottle will have the advantage. And not fairly.

Great wines have structure, and that can be intimidating on first glance. No bottle under $20 (US) should be drank without decanting and aeration, on the order of many hours.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[OrangeCatholic]

Correction: No bottle over $20 (US). My bad.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[OrangeCatholic]

As someone who reads the wine press, there's a recurring meme, that the best wines in the world are about $15-20 U.S.

As someone who shops wine, I know what they mean. They mean off-brands. They mean great wines from producers who really don't give a fuck. They have a terrific product, but no saleable brand (Kendall Jackson, J. Lohr, BV, etc). So they just put their wines out there, and if you find them, you win.

I've tasted $15 wines that beat $20 wines from reputable vineyards. And there are $11 wines that make you wonder why you would pay $15.

Italy and France are a gamble, quite frankly. They are slow to catch up to the "clean" style of America/Australia and are usually a waste of money imo.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[OrangeCatholic]

There's no question that you can smell chlorine in tap water. Come on. I purposely let my taps run until I can smell the chlorine and that's how I know it's "fresh".

The real question is if you can taste plastic in bottled water.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[OrangeCatholic]

>Probably a 35 dollar bottle that was marked up.

Not to mention, without proper aeration (4-24 hours) it would have tasted stiff.

It makes me wonder, what is the point of drinking expensive wine at a restaurant? The most important factor - aeration - is missing. Since this usually takes 12-24 hours (less with a decanter), it seems that restaurants are uniquely unqualified to deliver a proper wine-tasting experience.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[OrangeCatholic]

Retail is more like 1.5. It can vary from 1.3 to 2x. Example, a $6.67 wine is priced to sell at $9.99 (That's 1.5). If you can get a $6 wine and sell it for $11.99, then you're a big winner. $4 for $11.99 is possible, but rare.

Restaurant is generally 2x to 3x. Not 4x.

Nice try, you almost had it.

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Red Flayer]

Where do you live that markups for wine are like that? Are you west-coast US?

Here on the east coast, those markups are very typical, unless you're shopping at one of the high-volume discount places (and even then, they're not that far off).

Re:Let me take a pro-expensive wine position

[Mr. Freeman]

How the hell does a wine get an unfair advantage in terms of taste? Nonsense like "$wine will have the advantage, but unfairly" is stuff said only by wine snobs that think the $1000 bottle is better simply because it costs $1000.

Bad headline, hollow story

[1 a bee]

From TFA:

The researchers think carbon-dating fine wines could help nip in the bud the growing practice of vintage fraud.

According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag.

Nothing about the researchers estimating that 5%: that's made up by the "wine experts". (They should know.)

Re:Bad headline, hollow story

[TubeSteak]

American Chemical Society Press Release

The scientists used a highly-sensitive analytical device called an accelerator mass spectrometer to determine the C-14 levels in the alcohol components of 20 Australian red wines with vintages from 1958 to 1997 and then compared these measurements to the radioactivity levels of known atmospheric samples.

None of the articles I googled actually says if they found any fakes in their sample size of 20.
And as usual with lazy reporting, it seems like most the articles are 95% based on that American Chemical Society press release.

misleading summary

[SuperBanana]

According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag

The carbon dating didn't find 5% of wines are frauds. A bunch of "wine experts" they talked to said it.

Also, it's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine; it's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests. Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.

Re:misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

For the study to see if a wine's vintage can be carbon-dated, much in the same way that fossils are, the researchers measured the carbon-14 levels in the fermented sugars that give wine its alcohol content, in 20 Australian red wines from vintages from 1958 to 1997.

They then compared the measurements to radioactivity levels of known atmospheric samples, and found they were able to reliably determine the vintage of wines to within the vintage year.test, the whole thing is a load of crap.

Re:misleading summary

[Half-pint HAL]

Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.

Yes. It ended up in the atmosphere, and plants get their carbon from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a big thing that encircles the planet.

HAL.

Re:misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine; it's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests. Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, no it isn't.

Re:misleading summary

[geekoid]

That's only applies to wine made from grapes after the detonation of the first atomic bomb.

".., the whole thing is a load of crap."

ah yes, my old nemesis, argument from ignorance. We meet again.

Re:misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test...

It ended up pretty evenly distributed in the atmosphere, in CO2. (Some of it might have ended up in various residues at the test site - but, unless the test site was in a wine-growing region, you don't have to worry about that fraction being in the wine.)

It's not something like, say, particulate matter that just contaminates the area around the site. Any gas introduced in the atmosphere gets pretty thoroughly mixed over the entire Earth within a year or so.

BS Article

[rozthepimp]

Certain vintages (same grapestock, same vineyard, same winemaster) vary in perceived taste and value from year to year, depending on weather, harvest time, sugar content, etc. 1999 may be great, 2000 shoddy. Is C-14 dating accurate to within one year? Hmm...

Re:BS Article

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Absolutely. Wine is definitely nothing like Whiskey or Beer. You can get a bottle of Johnny Walker Black Label at mostly the same price anywhere in the world, and at any point in time, and it'll taste mostly the same. You can't say the same about wines, even when they have the same label.

Re:BS Article

[mother_reincarnated]

Yeah buddy, actually that's what the article is all about, that they can narrow it down to a single vintage with C-14... Doesn't actually say they found 5% of the wine was fake. Shocking that the title would be inaccurate and a poster wouldn't have RTFA on Slashdot, huh? ;)

Re:BS Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't actually say they found 5% of the wine was fake.

Yes it does. They asked "wine experts" who "estimated" the 5% number.

Or in other words, some wine snobs pulled it out of their asses. Which is probably why it's only 5%, the other 95% wouldn't squeeze through that tight of a sphincter.

Re:BS Article

[Teun]

Compare this to refilling a Black Label bottle with Red Label.

Re:BS Article

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Johnny Walker is a blend of dozens of whiskys to achieve the desired taste. While the individual ingredients might fluctuate in taste (like wines), the blend doesn't.

Re:BS Article

[mother_reincarnated]

Read that again mister coward...

Re:BS Article

[bickerdyke]

Well, then there are the SIngle Malts....

Re:BS Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no in regards to whisky/whiskey. Johnny Walker Black is a blended whisky and the distiller intentionally mixes many different batches with one of the chief goals being consistency. This can also be said to be true with the extreme low end of the whisky/whiskey spectrum where neutral spirits (akin to vodka) is blended with different batches of whiskey, again with the goal of consistency and hopefully drink-ability.

All of this changes when single malt and single barrel whisky/whiskeys are brought into consideration. While blending is an art, the true talent of the master distiller shines with these varieties. Even though the mash bill is consistent from vintage to vintage and the flavor profile of a particular brand still comes shining through, they will vary from bottle to bottle (provided they didn't come from the same barrel). Some of this variance can be attributed to the barrel itself, where the barrel was stored in the warehouse and the length of time it was aged among other things. A talented master distiller is able to isolate these special barrels and know when they've reached their peak for bottling. Just like wines, particular "vintages" are considered better than others and actively sought after.

Sorry for posting as an AC, it been so long since I've posted, I forget my account name. Must be too much consumption of that neutral spirits based whisky............

Re:BS Article

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Nooooooo! Sacrilege! Heresy!

Re:BS Article

[smeg]

The carbon "dating" is nothing of the sort. It is a match of C14/C12 ratios in the wine to ratios found in atmospheric samples, based on uptake and atmospheric composition, not on C14 decay.

You must be referring to Monster Wine

[m509272]

You must be referring to Monster Wine. Uh oh......

Re:You must be referring to Monster Wine

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be referring to Monster Wine. Uh oh......

I dunno, at $28/bottle, The Monster looks like a pretty good deal for those who enjoy an extra big-ass Zin...

Carbon dating is not accurate by century let alone

[aristotle-dude]

You cannot be sure what century an object is from with Carbon-14 dating let alone the year so it is useless for wines. This is without factoring in the possibility of cosmic rays speeding up the decay to make it appear older than it actually is.

Re:Carbon dating is not accurate by century let al

[SlappyBastard]

The folks dating wines use several other isotopes, too. Also, I don't think in this instance they're looking to date to specific years so much as prove that because of the range a particular vintage shows in testing, it can't possibly come from a particular year.

Even if I might not be able to give you an exact year it is, but I can easily prove a whole bunch of years that it isn't. If a bottle says it's from the court of Louis XIV, but the analysis shows it's from the 1920s, that's a big deal.

Also, we have excellent records of weather conditions going back centuries from many of the wineries. So, once you combine the analysis from the isotopes with what we already know about the wine in question, we can hazard a pretty good guess to the exact year. It's very possible that a particular wine could only have come from a single year during the range we have established for it.

And I'm sure some geek will add Bayesian error fixes to it after reading the article.

Welcome to the new world

[blind biker]

Today almost everything is adulterated - from Spanish and Greek olive oil (which is often either not virgin (cold-pressed) or not even olive), to milk and everything in between. Think that "100% pure Mysore Sandalwood" is actually from Mysore, or 100% pure - or even Sandalwood? Considering that Mysore Sandalwood has been illegal to harvest fr a number of years... and that Sandalwood is one of the most often adulterated essential oils... and that the great majority of people could not distinguish a 100% from a 5% essential oil, the answer is a resounding no.

Worst adulteration, as far as I know, is adding lead chromate to curry and turmeric, to improve the color: lead is deadly for your braincells, and hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic. Bon apetit!

Re:Welcome to the new world

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do they all have in common
Private Enterprise

Where the rule is
If it's possible to cheat - go for it
If you get caught, if it's not illegal, who cares
If it is illegal, blame someone else (poor government monitoring is always a good one)

With all the BS comming out of the US at the moment you would think the world is full of puritans - like health insurance companies (ducks)

Not much data

[blamanj]

That story doesn't leave much to go on, it's pretty low information content. However, it should be noted that a vintage wine can contain up to 15% of its grapes from another year. That would obviously skew any carbon dating results.

'Sideways': Everything you need to know bout wine

[Leemeng]

1. Don't chew gum while tasting wine.
2. Delicate grapes on a vine can be a metaphor for your life / personality, or something.
3. If anyone orders Merlot, leave.

Re:Carbon dating is not accurate by century let al

[compro01]

There are alternate radiocarbon techniques that are much more accurate. Nuclear weapons testing resulted in a big spike in atmospheric carbon-14 levels globally, which is dropping rapidly since the test ban treaty. Biologists have been using these techniques for determining cell ages for a couple years.

More info can be found here

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[Dahamma]

So has Monty Python, and it's probably still in the top 10 references on slashdot...

Re:Carbon dating is not accurate by century let al

[DavidRawling]

Or, since you HAVE read /. for a while, you could read the article. Which describes the measurement of increased C14 levels due to atmospheric fallout after detonation of nuclear weapons, and their subsequent reduction (dilution) due to fossil fuel burning, which in their testing was enough to narrow down to a specific year.

I never would have guessed

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean 5% of Two Buck Chuck is actually vintage wine? How can we tell the vintage from the cheap crap we actually paid for? I've been lucky so far and haven't got stuck with one of those vintage bottles.

5% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?

[YesIAmAScript]

No seriously, who is selling counterfeit cars in the US?

Re:5% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Ah Crap!, again?

Ok, this wines weren't counterfeit either.

They were (supposedly) wines saying to have certain qualities they didn't have.

It's normal to get a bottle saying to be a 1985 reserve that is actually a 2002 bottle. Still a very good wine, just cheaper and not that rare.

Now, how many cars promise to get certain amount of miles per galon, and km until you need a service, and don't actually get nearly even close?

That's a close enough analogy.

Re:5% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?

[milosoftware]

Because counterfeiting an American car is like counterfeiting Swedish wine.

Re:5% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?

[Asic Eng]

Counterfeiting cost the global auto industry $12 billion - $3 billion alone in the United States.

Granted this is counterfeiting of car parts.

Re:5% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?

[bickerdyke]

you actually use miles per gallon but km to the next service??

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[JWSmythe]

It was in reruns, at least when I was a kid. I can't say that I remember any of it though. :)

    some shows stick with us though, but some more my speed and still haunt my dreams. :)

Non-expensive wines

[AliasMarlowe]

In London, I heard a standard rule of thumb that it costs about £100 to get an enjoyable bottle of wine. This breaks down as about £10 for the bottle you actually enjoy, and the remaining £90 for the nine other bottles you bought. Really, there are a lot of nice wines in the £10 price bracket, but they are surrounded by many less nice ones, and it's a matter of taste as to which ones are nicest.

How do they test, and how certain?

[Dthief]

Do they open the old bottles and waste the wine, or do they wait under the table until someone drinks a vintage bottle? Also 5% with how much certainty, they really need to give some values or link to a data source. What range of C-12/C14 ratios are there over the past century?

Wine dating reveals fraud in carbon dating

[chentiangemalc]

have they used reference wines which they know to be authentic, by which to judge the accuracy of the carbon dating results? maybe this is a last dash attempt at making their article have some appeal to the general public. i expect carbon 14 dating experts must have it tough finding jobs in Australia, maybe they are hoping wine collectors will hire them to authneticate their collections...maybe they can do stamp collections as well.

They've been doing this for years, actually.

[Creosote]

The Australian researcher quoted in the story was co-author of a paper involving forensic use of C-14 dating of wines published in 2004:

U. Zoppi, Z. Skopec, J. Skopec, G. Jones, D. Fink, Q. Hua, G. Jacobsen, C. Tuniz, A. Williams, Forensic applications of 14C bomb-pulse dating, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Volumes 223-224, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, August 2004, Pages 770-775, ISSN 0168-583X, DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2004.04.143.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TJN-4CDWMNK-F/2/b2a003d44396872bd06d5c80443167cd)

and I'm nearly certain I saw published research in the 1990s using C-14 dating to establish wine adulteration, but as it's 3:40 in the morning insomniac me is not going to run down the reference

Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

You think you can taste the difference.

A lot of your enjoyment of "expensive goods" is psychological. So your "tasting a difference" may simply be a variation on wishful thinking. Have you tried a double-blind test?

Of course, you may still say you "enjoy" expensive wines more if you're counting the whole experience (self-deception included) and that's your prerogative.

Re:Correction:

[MrHanky]

Hogwash. Tasting the difference between two wines is often very easy. A preference for the more expensive wine might well be induced by knowledge of which wine is supposedly the finer.

Re:Correction:

[Abcd1234]

Bah, what an idiotic argument. Clearly the OP meant "reliably determining which one is the more expensive one" when he said "tasting the difference".

Well done with the nitpicking, though...

Re:Correction:

[MrHanky]

How can something the AC does not say be "clearly" meant? You're just guessing.

The AC's comment is just a regurgitation of what engineering types usually say when confronted with lunatic audiophiles who believe it's worth paying $10,000 for a pair of silver speaker cables that have been digested by the most discerning Asian palm civets. Since he's simply repeating things everyone already has read on Slashdot, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of doubt: there's no chance that he has any clue that he knows what he's talking about, and a good chance that he actually meant what he said.

Re:Correction:

[Abcd1234]

How can something the AC does not say be "clearly" meant? You're just guessing.

Well, typically, when participating in a conversation, whether online or verbal, one makes use of "context" and "common sense" when attempting to interpret a statement.

In this case, the context is defined by the article. The article is about the ability of a wine drinker to reliably detect a "vintage" bottle of wine as compared to a regular bottle of wine. "Common sense" then strongly suggests that, when the OP said "You think you can taste the difference", he/she meant "detect a 'vintage' bottle of wine as compared to a regular bottle of wine", and not just "Tasting the difference between two wines".

Honestly, does this *really* need to be spelled out for you?

Re:Correction:

[MrHanky]

No, the context wasn't the article, and the article isn't about "the ability of a wine drinker to reliably detect a "vintage" bottle of wine as compared to a regular bottle of wine" -- it's about C-14 dating of wine to expose vintage fraud.

Wow, that was easy to debunk.

Sorry, but you're just stupid.

Re:Correction:

[AthanasiusKircher]

Hogwash. Tasting the difference between two wines is often very easy.

Yes -- if they are completely different types of wine, it is sometimes easy, though not as often as you might think. There is a 1963 study demonstrating that wine experts who were given white wine with food coloring gave the resulting wine taste characteristics of red wines instead of white.

More to your point, there was a 1990 study demonstrating that when experts were given three samples of a particular type of wine (e.g., pinot noir), two of which were the same wine, the experts were unable to identify the matching wines 1/3 of the time. That pretty much debunks your thesis.

And if that isn't enough, then there are the recent studies reported in the Wall Street Journal demonstrating that the expert panels of judges in California's biggest wine competition tended to vary by a ridiculous margin in their tastings of identical wines. And when the author looked at the statistics about which wines won medals in a given year, which ones consistently won medals, etc., it was clear that the judges really weren't any better than pulling medal winners out of a hat.

These are the experts. If experts display so much variance in their ratings of the same wine over a few tastings to the extent that their ratings are almost equivalent to chance, I think you could safely say that the average person, with presumably less experience, might not even be able to tell the difference between some different types of wine, let alone wines of the same type.

Re:Correction:

[MrHanky]

No, that doesn't debunk my "thesis" at all. Let me emphasize the word OFTEN in your quotation of me. I didn't say always (because I know it's untrue), nor even usually (I believe it's likely, but I'm not certain). You can't debunk that kind of statement by triangle testing two wines cherry-picked for being similar, no matter who the subjects are; you need a large (and random) sample of wines, triangle testing them against each others in pairs, and show that a difference is rarely perceived.

But within the context of the discussion with the AC above, I'd be willing to say my "thesis" were -- not debunked, but certainly proven irrelevant as a counter-point to his statement, if you (or anyone) could find a selection of sub $70 bottles of wine indiscernible from a random selection of $300 bottles.

The WSJ story is interesting and revealing, but neither surprises me nor concerns what I was getting at, which was only that wines taste different more often than not. I already agreed that humans are easily duped by price -- and other expectations as well, I might add -- and I won't change my opinion for the sake of discussion, but I don't agree that experts necessarily have better or more consistent palates (your "debunking" rests on both faulty logic and a specious assumption). Wider vocabularies for describing taste, certainly, but you don't need to know what tannin is to feel its effect on your tongue.

A good-tasting inexpensive wine

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not at all a wine person, but it's great to know a safe bet. Lately, I'd recommend Yellow Tail Merlot from Australia. Around $12 in North America.

Re:A good-tasting inexpensive wine

[Falconhell]

Funny you should mention yellow tail.

Novenmber last year there was a truck fire near Waikerie in South Aus. It was a wine truck.

All the wine had smoke damage to the bottles.

They dumped the whole lot in an area being filled
on the airfield. There was a mountain of different yellow tail wine 10 feet high and 20 feet in diameter!

All sorts of people were turning up late at night to grab a boot load-for free!

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[Mathinker]

I still remember the Carol Burnett Show "Went with the Wind" parody of Gone with the Wind, which I found hilariously funny as a kid even though I've never seen the original movie. I remember enjoying the TV show, I think a lot of it had to do with the impression that the cast often gave that they were just microns away from cracking up and causing an out-take.

And I see a certain parallel between the skit that Antique Geekmeister cited and the ending joke to the "Summarize Proust" Monty Python skit (of course, MP has taken the joke to an even greater extreme).

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

They add to the discussion by keeping goatse and tubgirl from being f1rst ps0t.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[cc1984_]

So has Monty Python, and it's probably still in the top 10 references on slashdot...

No it isn't

Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[LKM]

Your own experience is subjective. I've seen blind tests where professional wine testers were unable to taste the difference between white wine with red food coloring, and actual red wine. In another test, experts rated cheap wine highly, and expensive wine poorly when the labels were exchanged. Even the background colors influence how wine is evaluated. As far as I can tell, it's all bullshit.

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[novium]

Yes, that's all true. But that doesn't mean it's all bullshit, especially inside the industry. It's not uncommon to do blind tastings of like 20 bottles of a single type of wine (I've been to one on Syrah/Shiraz). Almost everyone at it was involved in the wine industry, and some were far better at others at identifying various aspects (like how old it was, or whether it was Australian or Californian). A lot of what the public hears is bullshit. Or, as my dad calls it, marketing. People generally want the mystique and the ritual. Wine snobs especially. I'd never trust a wine snob's opinion on wine; they generally are so obsessed with the ritual of look of things they actually don't know very much about anything.

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[DriedClexler]

Yes, that's all true. But that doesn't mean it's all bullshit,

Um, yes, yes it does. When the quality of wine depends 100% on what you expect its quality to be, that means its bullshit.

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[novium]

It doesn't though. The red/white thing is a good example: Wine is an amazing thing, which such variation possible. There are very strong whites and very mild reds. Depending on what you think it is, the words you use to describe it may change, but that does not mean you are wrong. What's the difference between a taste that is citrus-y and tart being described as 'orange zest' or just plain 'oranges'? That's the difference we are talking about here. My dad used to do descriptor tastings to teach people (industry people) how to taste and describe wine. He had a list of various words used to describe different notes. Paired side by side were words for red and white wines that usually meant the exact same thing, but were predominantly used for one or the other. The truth is you get the same effect even in food tasting. It's an entirely subjective experience, but just as in food, there's still a difference between good wine and bad wine. It's more a science than an art, as anyone who has seen a wine maker's office can tell you (it looks a bit like a mad scientist's lab in a movie).

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[Falconhell]

unable to taste the difference between white wine with red food coloring, and actual red wine.

Why bother with the colour if they are doing the test blind?

(:

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[LKM]

The word used to describe things which look like science but are entirely subjective is typically "pseudo science", not "science" :-)

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[LKM]

+1 Funny :-)

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[novium]

Wine making is not subjective. Unless you think chemistry is subjective? That's basically what they've got it down to. They track everything about the wine- they know exactly how the soil composition will effect the vines, they measure the sugars in the grapes, they know exactly why you can get certain notes in wine, and work to get those.I am a bit hazy on those details, but as I recall (and it'll probably be hilariously wrong in the detail) it has something to do with something in the wine, something chemistry-ish being able to replicate the things that make, say, a grapefruit taste like a grapefruit.

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[LKM]

Wine making is not subjective. Unless you think chemistry is subjective?

That's a bit of a non sequitur. Sure, wine making uses concepts from chemistry. However, that doesn't make it objective. That would be like saying "homeopathy is not subjective because pill manufacturers use ideas from chemistry to make their sugar pills". Or like saying "Scientology is objective because it includes and builds on certain scientific ideas."

The scientific method is quite clearly defined. Whenever we apply it to wine (e.g. when we do double-blind experiments), the result is that wine is entirely subjective.

Re:Wine tasting is probably 99% bullshit

[novium]

In fine points of enjoyment, certainly. In what people think a wine is *worth*, which is the big one, definitely. But in why a wine tastes like it does, and how to get there? That is science. Take a tour in a modern winery. Talk to the wine makers. It might surprise you.

They didn't detect frauds with carbon dating...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, The article states nothing about detecting frauds with carbon dating. It only states that they tested carbon dating with several whines and came up with good corresponding dates.
The article then describes that according to experts 5% of wines are frauds, but this has nothing to do with the tests.

There are only 2 types of wine...

[denzacar]

...anyway.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[xenn]

Yes it is

A small correction

[jandersen]

Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are

From the article about rocks, however:

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Why do I care about such an almost trivial inaccuracy? Well, because this kind of misunderstanding finds its way into things like the attacks on evolution by the religious fringe, or the attacks on climate science by the energy industry, where it abused to "prove" just about anything.

Forgot a step

[Anonymous Coward]

...

Dispose of the rest thoughtfully, while enjoying a beer. Aged for 1 hour to cool down.

The difference between wine and beer is that nobody is going to suggest that the real way to enjoy a fine beer is to spit it out.

Re:Forgot a step

[deniable]

I said thoughtfully, not like a wine snob.

So?

[zippthorne]

What is this, Logan's Run? Just because something is over 30 doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Re:So?

[TheLink]

Carousel time for you!

Re:So?

[complete loony]

Just because something is over 30 doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Yes it does.

Re:So?

[bickerdyke]

Hmmm...

Logan's Run definitly IS older than 30 years by now....

Re:So?

[Chris Burke]

What is this, Logan's Run? Just because something is over 30 doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Oh yeah? Then why did I receive an official Certificate of Irrelevance on my 30th birthday?

Oh wait. I just checked the date on it. Turns out it was caught in the mail system for fifteen years. Never mind.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[daveime]

Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor ...

Monster cables

[syousef]

Next you'll tell me Monster cables aren't worth it!

Pinot listerine

[paiute]

I've had a $400 wine before (obtained at a decent price and then aged). The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal relative to the price.

I doubt anyone without a really refined palate would be able to notice. And even if you did, you would probably chalk it up to poor storage or oxidation or something.

Is it just me? I can tell the difference between types of beers, but all wines taste like mouthwash to me.

Re:First

[selven]

The filter already exists. And it seems to be working quite well right now.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[ezzzD55J]

if you're going with the addams family, why in god's name didn't you go with Christina Ricci ;)

Lack of details, other sources of carbon...

[purduephotog]

When I read the article I came up with over a dozen questions, none of which were adequately explained. Thus:

Other sources of carbon in the batch- You've got oak, the toasting process, blending of different types of oak/wines, reuse of barrels, different toasted barrels, different types of oak in the barrel, the possibility of a really old oak barrel (neutral) used for fermentation and combination of items such as StaVin's Oak Cubes or Oak Staves, (two different sources of carbon)...

Oak is aged anywhere from 2-3 years before toasting. Toasted oak could be years different than what the year of the vintage is. Oak Trees are significant sources of variability. (Toasting oak releases sugars and flavours into the wine).

Chaptalization is another source- sometimes wines are started with diluted or various mixes of sugar and water to strengthen the yeast growth. You have a grape must that is a little low in sugar- so add more sugar. Where did it come from? Who knows. Probably not beet sugar, if you know what I mean.

Say you have a stuck fermentation- you take some wine out, dilute it, add more sugar, wine, repeat- eventually bringing up the level until the yeast are strong enough to take back over.

Finally, you have blends. To the best of my knowledge a blended wine doesn't have to state the year or can state the year of the major component - depending on the laws of the region.

All in all... not the best article.

Re:Lack of details, other sources of carbon...

[Anonymous Coward]

Other sources of carbon in the batch-

Contamination from oak is small enough to discount. The wine's ~10% ethanol, and ethanol's ~50% carbon by mass, so there's ~35g of carbon in each 750 mL bottle of wine. A few trace aromatic compounds leached from the oak are going to be insignificant compared to that.

The other sources you mention might be significant, adding a major (O(10%)) contaminant with a date a few years different from the rest of the wine - but that's going to put you out by less than a year, which doesn't stop you from telling the difference between a 50-year-old vintage wine and a 5-year-old fake.

C14 Dating and Rocks ???

[kjhambrick]

Someone ?

What rocks can one date via C14 ?

-- kjh ( ?? perhaps recent corals ?? )

Oblig Taste Test

[Theoboley]

Playboy conducted a taste test of the top 10 tasting wines in the world: Here are the top Two:

2 - Chateu Latour

and drum roll please!!!!

__________________________________________________

1 - A bucket of Horse piss

Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Wine tastes pretty bad anyway. Who cares how aged it is.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[digitrev]

Bloody git.

The most expensive wines are undrinkable

[malp]

http://www.decanter.com/news/93359.html
http://www.newluxuryitems.com/top-10-most-expensive-wines-in-the-world.html

People paying 6-figure dollar amounts for a bottle of wine are not buying a quality beverage. They are buying an rare antique. The bottles themselves are filled with vinegar at best. Of course fraud is rampant. Rich people are buying otherwise worthless objects with a cute story behind them.

Carbon dating...

[pizza_milkshake]

ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_datingrel=url2html-21275http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating> only works for things up to ~50,000 years old, so it wasn't used for those old rocks. For things older than ~100,000 years folks use ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_datingrel=url2html-21275http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating>. The applicable time period is based on the half-life of the isotope. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years while Potassium-40's is 1.248e9 years.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[cmiller173]

Best outtake ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqE_WmagjY

Mod Parent Up

[keithpreston]

Good article links, thanks, wish I had mod points.

Can taste the difference to a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the comparisons to the audiophile market are not too far off the mark. You don't have to be a wine connoisseur to recognize that making a fine wine is a combination of art and science. Anyone can tell that each wine has distinctive qualities. How much a person appreciates the rarity of a particular wine will dictate what they are willing to pay for it. But for every person with a refined enough palate to appreciate an expensive wine, the are dozens who will pay the same money and say they can taste all of the subtleties and even convince themselves that they can, even if they really can't. Much like in the audiophile market the number of people of people who can actually hear the difference in high end equipment is much smaller than they number who have convinced themselves that they can. Ironically, it is often the younger set who are desperate to establish themselves who fall into the latter category and spend far too much on high end audio equipment and/or wine than they should. It is only when they are older that they recognize the folly of their youth.

Re:Can taste the difference to a point

[natehoy]

It is only when they are older that they recognize the folly of their youth.

Ah, but then they can at least sell their overpriced gear off to the next generation, usually at a markup, with arguments like "LP sounds better than even the best CD" or "vacuum tubes make better sound".

Australian Wine

[lavardo]

Great. My 2009 Yellow Tail Shiraz is actually 2010.

Re:Australian Wine

[natehoy]

You think you've got problems? My 2010 "Temporal Anomaly" Malbec is actually a 2043. All I got was a couple of vines and a packet of yeast.

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[jte]

"Missus-a-Whiggins!" Harvey could never keep a straight face on those skits. :)

Re:'Sideways': Everything you need to know bout wi

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot

4. If someone says they love the movie Sideways, leave.

A Simple Fix?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just blend your modern wine with industrial alcohol made from fossil fuels? Presumably you could obtain the correct amount of carbon-14 this way? The only way this *might* be detectable is from C12/C13 ratios...

Re:'Sideways': Everything you need to know bout wi

[natehoy]

4. Always order Merlot. Everyone else leaves, more wine for you!

Sorry, I should have said

[einhverfr]

It's only valid for a certain subset of organic matter.

Interestingly enough, you can't use it for fish bones, and it is wildly inaccurate to date land animals who eat a lot of fish.

Re:Sorry, I should have said

[Rei]

Also, plants growing around volcanic vents can get messed up readings.

Basically, C14 has widely known weaknesses, and anyone who attempts to publish a paper that doesn't take these into account should expect the scientific smackdown they deserve. ;)

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[JWSmythe]

I'm not going to be the one that says a little girl was hot. :)

    Ok, when the first movie came out that she was in, she vaguely age appropriate for me. I liked the darkness of her character, even if she was 11. Now, saying it about her in that movie would make me a pervert. Funny how society works. The same could be said for Lydia Deetz, or Queen Amidala.

    But to that end, sometimes you just can't argue. :)

Actually

[einhverfr]

A lot of coal deposits show false readings with C14-dating (mistakenly putting the age within the expected area for C14 dating accuracy). The problem isn't just that it's old. The issue is that alpha decay of trace radioactive minerals around the coal can produce C14, so the proportions get all messed up.

Interestingly the exact opposite problem occurs trying to date bones of people who ate a lot of fish. Since C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere and absorbed by land plants, marine life tends to have lower quantities of it. If you eat a lot of fish, and you are murdered, and someone tries to C14 date your bones, they might conclude you had been dead for several hundred years......

Re:-3.14 Reference Snobs

[ezzzD55J]

I'm not going to be the one that says a little girl was hot. :) I meant Christina Ricci now, not then :-)

Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agreed. It's not my intention to start a flame war here, but Argentinian wines are far superior to any Chilean wine you'll ever taste. One of the finest Chile has is El Gato Negro, and is nothing compared to even cheap Argentinian wines like Lopez or Norton clasico.

Yeah, yeah, and Uruguay is the country closest to heaven.

Mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

All I've got to say on the subject is that any wine that I feel is worth drinking, an expert usually tells me is crap...

Unless they don't know the price beforehand.

Wine tasters are like art critics. They rarely can tell if it's a chimp or a human doing the painting if not told beforehand. Many people who claim to tell the difference in the quality of wines rarely do it on a blind taste test.

not carbon dating

[belmolis]

The dating of old rocks cited as an example in the post is not an example of carbon-dating. Carbon dating only goes back about 50K years, nowhere near 4 billion. Those old rocks were dated on the basis of their content of isotopes of certain rare earths which decay much more slowly than Carbon-14.