The Harvard Society of Fellows, I learned from this great post by Steve Levitt, drink expensive wine — like $60/bottle. Steve, who was a Fellow for 3 years, did a simple experiment that showed the other members couldn’t tell expensive wine from cheap wine. Although the other members had liked the idea of doing the experiment, they didn’t like the results:
There was a lot of anger when I revealed the results, especially the fact that I had included the same wine twice. One eminent scholar stormed out of the room stating that he had a cold — otherwise he would have detected my sleight of hand with certainty.
Stormed out of the room! Why were they so angry? I think they were embarrassed. And not just that. Steve doesn’t say it, but I think there had been lots of dinner table conversation about how great the wine was. Now all that conversation was revealed to be delusional. Noting the greatness of the wine was — to be crude about it — a way of noting the greatness of those assembled at the table. “We appreciate the finer things in life,” they were saying. “We deserve to be here.” Snobbery is reassuring. In a tiny voice, the results said, yes, you are here, congratulations, but the reason you are here is more complicated than “you deserved it”.
That is an interesting observation.
At the world-renowned Viticulture and Enology program at UC Davis, the message is two-fold: Primo, “Average $10 per bottle of wine in your consumption schedule,” and Segundo, “If you buy a bottle of wine that costs more than $25, especially if it is over $50, make sure that everyone drinking the wine knows exactly how much you paid for that bottle.”
At a Christmas party last year, we conducted a similar experiment, with a similar result, on our (now former) wine-snob friends. We thought it would be a hoot. Interesting how snobs are totally without humor. Also, thanks for quoting from my other favorite blog.
Next time you have a dinner party, blindfold your guests and see if they can tell the difference between white wine and red wine. I failed!
Still, there is an obvious difference between home-made wine and $15-a-bottle stuff, and between $15 wine and $30 wine (I’m less sure of this, because I don’t drink much $30 wine). Above $30? I doubt it matters.
The quality of a wine is only weakly positively correlated with its price. It is also true that there are more poor quality wines at lower prices (e.g., less than $10 a bottle) than at higher prices. This is simply because consumers will not pay high prices for low quality wine, and the critics will out them pretty quickly anyway. But at lower prices, there are many gems to be found! I’ve been really enjoying delicious wines at great values (less than $12 a bottle) currently being exported from Spain, Italy, Chile, and Argentina.
Seth, in one of your previous posts I remember you noting that developing your palette and allowing you to distinguish between low and high quality actually increased the pleasure you got out of consuming the high quality goods. This would suggest you disagree with Levitt’s idea that ‘ignorance is bliss’ when it comes to wine.
that’s true, cyates, I do disagree with Levitt that ignorance is bliss in this case. Lately I’ve been buying two bottles of wine from the same grape — e.g., two bottles of sauvignon blanc — and doing blind comparisons. Eventually I can tell them apart. And it does make me enjoy that type of wine more.
The comments from cyates are just what I was thinking when I read this post. Actually, when I read Levitt’s original piece, my first thought was that you would be rolling your eyes at this. Part of that was my knee-jerk reaction to what I perceive as other economists getting a little too enamored with their own cleverness and “discovering” something that experts in the fields they’re colonizing have known all along. Wow, so experts know good wine and non-experts do not–this is surprising? The implication is that non-experts have nothing to gain by developing a palette for good wine? It wasn’t long ago that I would have picked a soda over a beer. It’s cheaper too! The authors of this paper would have suggested that I had nothing to gain by developing a taste for the more complex but more expensive beverage (actually, it seems like their assumption is that taste doesn’t develop at all). But now, even though I’m poorer for it, I enjoy the drinking experience more.
Also, trotting out the “finding” that price does not equal quality, which is nothing more than a misconception by people who don’t know anything about at wine, hardly makes this experiment a worthwhile enterprise. Their interpretation of their finding is that non-experts shouldn’t rely on the opinion of experts or price in making wine choices. But among non-experts, casual white zinfandel drinkers won’t be reading those opinions anyway, and eager learners may be developing an appreciation for those wines that they wouldn’t have picked in a taste test. According to these authors though, they should have stuck with soda! Investing in enjoyment that may come in the future as well as enjoying the hobby of learning more about wine doesn’t figure in to their interpretation (in the conclusion or abstract, anyway).
A great related post is:
https://ozarque.livejournal.com/536010.html
The real story about wine and beer is the same as random flavors mixed in with butter and served on toast — you can learn from the calorie and alcohol associations a good amount that makes you appreciated rotted fruit and grain better.
Note that without alcohol, the market in premium near beers just hasn’t done well, in spite of numerous efforts.
I seem to have mistitled this post. To me the fascinating thing about Steve’s story is how angry the Fellows got. Do you think I’m right that they were embarrassed? If so, why? They’re not wine experts.
I think that it was embarrasment. Since they talk about something so much and act like they know what their talking about, only to be exposed as “phonies” can be quite humiliating.
Very interesting experiment but I’d like to know the psychology of thier angery reaction more in depth.