Blind Wine Tasting

That may be pointing out the lack of expertise of the tasters.Aren't red vs white wines different things? I'm not at all a regular wine drinker with a sophisticated appreciation of the nuances, but I can pick up lots of different tastes between different wines.

It's probably a lot like wine, where blindfolded critics struggle to determine between red and white or $5 and $5000 wine but can claim to tell you which particular hillside of a vineyard in France the bottle came from if they can see the bottle.

The blind tasting studies prove that connoisseurs can't discern the price of wine by taste. They can tell whether or not they like it perfectly well. A good bottle, not an expensive one.

Also, wine is barely better than water in terms of taste perception. Even wine "experts" can't differentiate wine in a blind test - they've been known to confuse red and white wine, give wildly inconsistent ratings to a single wine over multiple tests, and correlate high ratings with high price - even if the "expensive" wine is really a cheap on with a fake fancy label and price tag.

I'm not a wine drinker, but when I listen to people drinking, I noticed some frequently occurring patterns, for example:> normally, I drink only […] wine but I somehow like this one, too.> The label says this one is very […], but I actually find it rather […]> I like [bottle A]. > I like [bottle B]. > I like [bottle C].Personally, when I hear things like this and read articles like [1] I can't help but take wine tasting for complete BS. Then again, I don'

He means that most people cannot tell the difference between different wines based on quality or cost in a blind taste test. If you tell them it's a high quality label, they drink it and act that way. If you tell them it's a low quality label, they don't use fancy descriptors when you ask their opinion. What it really is doesn't correlate with the results at all; it's all placebo.And what the other commenter said is also true. Most people can't even tell a differ

From the wikipedia article:"One of the most famous instances of blind testing is known as the Judgment of Paris, a wine competition held in 1976 where French judges blind-tested wines from France and California. Against all expectations, California wines bested French wines according to the judges, a result which would have been unlikely in a non-blind contest."So, the judges can taste the difference, but they aren't honest unless it's a blind test. That's v

> The inescapable conclusion is, the supposed differences between white and red wine are imaginary.The problem is that white/red is a very large grouping of wine. There are very light reds with low tannins that could be hard to tell particularly if served at room temp. There are some robust white wines that fall into this same overlap. In general, red vs. white is normally pretty easy assuming typical red and white wine.Within these large groupings of white/red there are also

Sommeliers claim to have incredible wine tasting powers, yet in a blind taste test I cannot reliably distinguish red wine from white wine. Maybe with more training I could, but shouldn't the difference be obvious without training?I've yet to be convinced that subtly in wine and coffee flavor is an objective matter.

I often hear people who know little about wine (not saying that is true about you!) talk about 'emperor's new clothes' with wine. I'm not saying that people aren't affected by say price or status of a type of wine - of course we are. In the same way people probably like belugan caviar or some expensive types of meat more because of its high price.I also think the study that showed wine experts that couldn't tell which vintage of the same wine was better sort of s