NY Times neglects to interview the charlatan

Carly sent over a link—from the online edition of the NY Times—to an article I wish I’d written. It discusses some fairly high-profile studies (blind taste-tests really) that seemed to show that wine snobbery is all in our heads. But as the Times aptly points out, the people who preferred the Two-Buck Chuck were not necessarily “experts.” They were just average charlatans like yours truly.

One favorite (and quite telling) passage:
“…But assuming for the moment that it’s true that most drinkers prefer the cheap stuff, why does anyone bother buying $55 cabernet? One answer is provided by a second experiment, in which presumably sober researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the Stanford Business School demonstrated that the more expensive consumers think a wine is, the more pleasure they are apt to take in it.”

And while that’s a good point—certainly there is a placebo effect to swilling a bottle so expensive that it makes me late on my rent—I think that pricing isn’t entirely an effect of the winemaker’s ego. Something the Times article doesn’t really touch upon: There are higher production costs for better grapes.

But the writer does hint in that direction, invoking context as being an important (and perhaps the most important) part of enjoying a bottle.

What can context do? A wimpy Rose that I would normally scoff at becomes really quite drinkable with the addition of quick-witted company and an artsy period drama. A $10 Italian table red drunk with the accompaniment of s’mores is almost transcendent. Champagne bought in gallon jugs became an indulgence when it poured from a rented fountain at my best friend’s wedding.

So, my darlings, please try not to drink alone in dank basements. Find a sunny spot in the yard or lay in your truck bed looking at the stars. Wine is only as good as the place where it’s consumed.