Slashdot Mirror
Chemists Build App That Could Identify Cheap Replacements For Luxury Wines
schliz writes "Australian startup Wine Cue is combining the chemical composition of wines with customer ratings for what it hopes to be a more objective wine recommendation engine than existing systems that are based on historical transactions. The technology is likely to reach the market as a smartphone app, and could be used to identify cheap alternatives to expensive bottles."
If there is one thing that needs more objectivity its wine tasting.
Too often the results are the opinion of the person who bought the bottle, and too seldom is there truly blind taste testing by people not already familiar with the vintage.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Black Stump Bourdeaux is rightly praised as a peppermint flavored burgundy, whilst a good Sydney Syrup can rank with any of the world's best sugary wines.
Yes, exactly.
And this had better be an Android-only app.
The absolute last thing an IDevice owner wants to know is that his/her expensive purchase is objectively inferior to a cheaper alternative.
The horror! The horror!
BumWine.com lists the only wines you'll ever need.
I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
>I'm not a wine snob, but I know there are certain things that sometimes you *can't* replicate.
You're clearly also not a chemist either.
>After decades of analysis, we still can't build a violin as good as a Stradivarius.
No, what we can't do is build a violin that self-proclaimed audiophiles say is as good as a Stradivarius during NON-BLIND TESTS in UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS. If you administer proper double-blind tests then you'll find that there's no difference.
>We still can't fully replicate Damascus Steel
Talk to a metallurgist. Modern steel actually performs better. I'm not sure how much effort has been given to duplication, but why try to duplicate something when you already have a better replacement?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Welcome to Wine Cue!
INPUT: Chateau Petrus, 1998 vintage, Pomerol primarily of Merlot grapes, estimated retail 3500USD
RECOMMENDATION: Charles Shaw, 2010 vintage, Merlot, estimated retail 2USD
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Strad's aren't any better sounding than brand new violins.
Target house brand box red wine. That's right, you buy it at Target (at locations where they're allowed to sell wine).
The three varieties, Merlot, Shiraz, and blend are all good. It's like the best $12 bottle you've ever had -- not a typical $12 bottle, the best. The box is $16 and contains the equivalent of four bottles, of course with the self-sealing spigot and collapsing plastic bladder to prevent oxidation. Stays fresh for weeks or even months after opening -- provides a glass a day for three weeks.
I'm not a wine snob, but I know there are certain things that sometimes you *can't* replicate. [...] I'd argue that fine liquors -- wines, whiskeys, etc... fall into that category. I'd say it's almost an art form.
Detailed studies of professional wine judges in blind tastings have shown that prizes from contest to contest are so random that they might as well be picked from a hat. And the average professional judge, tasting the same wine on consecutive days, would on average only be able to narrow the rating to within 8 points on a 20-point scale.
Other studies have even shown that professional tasters often fare pretty poorly even in tests like, "Taste 3 wines, tell me which 2 are identical," or that when given white wines dyed with red food coloring, they start spouting out the nonsense about "flavor notes" and "nose" that would be appropriate for red wines rather than whites.
Given this information, it's pretty clear that even the so-called "expert palettes" don't know what the hell they're talking about.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's pretty likely chemists could master the subtle art of getting a wine result that could satisfy even most professional judges in a blind test.
I've had some spectacular wines. No, no, not the wines that cost hundreds of euros per bottle. but wines that could be described as "WOW. I didn't know wine could do that". It would be nice to have an app that would suggest similar wines, based on a chemical spectrum instead of "that estate had a truly extraordinary summer, and more recent vintages have not faired as well."
If a particular chemical is playing around with my brain,I want to know about it and be able to invite it around again sometime.
It always amuses the hell out of me when people think there were these amazing ancient technologies so much better than anything modern. It is like they think various videogames and novels are real and that we study the knowledge of the ancients to advance what we have, despite all evidence to the contrary.
As you say, all this stuff is bullshit. In terms of violins we can, if anything, build even better violins today because of better material selection and manufacturing techniques. The thing that makes Stradivarius sought after is its rarity. It is a special thing to own one, as there aren't many. That then of course leads to a mystique and to people making bullshit claims.
Same kind of thing with Damascus Steel. It has been claimed to be able to do things like cut through a gun barrel, which of course it can't do (gun barrels are amazingly tough objects). We can do better with modern metallurgy and processes (like an industrial hammer forge). The reason there's research to replicating Damascus Steel is because it is neat, it was very advanced for the time and it would be of historical interest to understand how it was done. We can do better, and indeed do all the time.
The way in which the microwave heats from the inside out...
What???? Granted:
* it's radiative heating, not contact heating
* the penetration depth of microwave in water is between 25-38 mm, I assume larger than the IR penetration depth.
but for the rest of the "inside", the heat transfer from those 25-38mm of "out" is not in any way different from cooking inside a gas oven. In other words, the stuffing inside your turkey will cook pretty much the same way in a microwave or classical oven, irrespective of spherical turkeys or placement in vacuum.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Very interesting.
In a blind test, professional musicians:
In fact, the only statistically obvious trend in the choices was that one of the Stradivarius violins was the least favorite, and one of the modern instruments was slightly favored.
the 17 players who were asked to choose which were old Italians, "Seven said they couldn't, seven got it wrong, and only three got it right.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Really? Have you ever been to the Luxor?
No it wouldn't, it would just be politically untenable because having thousands of slaves is looked down upon nowadays, even if you do give them JCBs to make it easier.
Wouldn't it be nice if, in addition to alcoholic content, the labels on wine bottles clearly displayed the amount of sweetness, acidity, and astringency ? I'm talking about real numbers with some kind of scale.
Yes, but misleading.
We tried this at a wineyard. The guideline we were given was to stay away from anything but "dry" wine. The measurable amount of sugar left is used to distinguish between dry and sweet wines, but a good dry wine can have fruity aromas that will lead to a perceived sweetness, even though the fermentation has been completed. (and hardly any sugar is left)
bickerdyke
...simplicity in wine labelling:
"A fine-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon, with rich chocolate and blackberry notes. Will get you shitfaced."
Absolutely. I'm aware of all of this. I still don't think that makes any of what I said false or wrong. Just because tasters think a $5 wine tastes better when it's described as a $100 bottle doesn't affect the proportion of bad cheap wines vs. bad expensive wines. I can only remember one or two occasions where I've been served a moderate or expensive wine without knowing the price ahead of time and thought, "This is TERRIBLE!" I can remember dozens of occasions where I've been served a cheap wine without knowing the price and thought, "This is TERRIBLE!"
I'm not going to claim that my experience is solid evidence of anything. But I do think there is a higher proportion of terrible wines at lower price-points.
I'm assuming that part of your post was reacting to my claim that I sometimes will pay a premium price because of my previous good experiences with something. This has nothing to do with claiming that these expensive liquors are always better than cheaper ones or even that their tastes are unique.
But let's say that I like the taste of a particular kind of single-malt scotch or bourbon or whatever, and I find out after I've tasted it that it costs $60 or $70 for a bottle. (This has happened to me a lot -- I've gone to tasting parties, had people buy me drinks at bars, etc., having no idea about the cost of the item in question.)
For a few of these liquors, where a bottle probably lasts me over a year, spending the $60 is worth it, because I already know the taste is what I like. I could spend a few hundred dollars sampling other cheap whiskies looking for something I like as much for $20 or $30 per bottle, but why should I? It's not cost effective if I've found what I like.
My reason for buying a few premium priced liquors is almost always because I discovered something I liked, usually without knowing the price ahead of time, and I want that consistency of taste. I'll also do the same in repeatedly buying a $5 bottle of wine that I know I like... it has nothing to do with expensive vs. cheap.