The provocative assertions on the cover of the book The Wine Trials (by Robin Goldstein) were sufficiently controversial to get me to pick it up again after a many months-long hiatus. That and I had nothing else in my bag to read at the doctor’s office. I’m only two chapters in, so no grand conclusions just yet, but the cover boasts the following: “100 wines under $15 that outscored $50 to $100 bottles” and “How to beat the placebo effect and reclaim your palate.” I don’t feel all that territorial about my palate, but the premise of the book is appealing, especially for wine lovers who seek excellent values in what we drink and enjoy.
The book kicks off suggesting that blind tasters prefer, by a statistically significant margin, (much) cheaper wines to their premium counterparts. To prove the point, the authors conducted blind tastings across a wide spectrum of the wine-drinking world. Their initial comparison is a bottle of Dom Perignon ($150) with a Chateau Ste Michelle Brut ($12). Forty-one of sixty-two tasters preferred the sparkler from Washington. No mention of the vintage of the Dom, but there was this conclusion: “At a minimum, it seems clear that many Americans might be wasting at least $138 when they buy Dom Perignon for special occasions.”
Maybe, maybe not. There are obviously a host of issues with these blind side-by-side tastings, discussed in detail whenever the results of one are announced. One problem is that most wine isn’t tasted blind. It’s opened with full knowledge of producer, region, and cost, which proves to be its own problem – the placebo effect noted on the book’s cover.
I have my ideas, but what conclusions really can be drawn from these sorts of blind tastings? Is it true that “your brain can be fooled by expectations” and that “blind tasting can open your eyes?” What is the role of expectations in your enjoyment of wine? I’ll keep reading.
