Dear Dr. Vinny,
I used to host wine tastings, including blind tastings, starting with the cheapest wines first, then progressing to the best (most expensive) ones last.
Sometimes attendees would say that the first, cheapest wine was the best of the night. Those people were usually the least knowledgeable about wine of the group, but I thought it was an interesting comment. What do you make of this? Are we so-called wine experts pre-conditioned snobs?
—Terrence, Helotes, Texas
Dear Terrence,
I have a few ideas about what you might be observing, and thankfully they don’t have to do with snobbery. They do have a lot to do with context.
I think it’s common for the first wine in a tasting to seem especially delicious. But often, if you come back to it later, after you’ve tasted the rest of the wines, it might seem a bit less exciting.
I, for one, just get excited to be tasting wine! That first sip will always seem extra good. That’s why when we do blind tastings in the Wine Spectator offices, we always start with a benchmark wine to help us calibrate our palates. That first wine is a reference point, an unblind wine that helps warm us up.
The next time you set up a blind tasting, you might think about playing with the order of the wines. You could even start with a non-blind wine (might I suggest Champagne or another sparkling wine?) to help wake up everyone’s palate and get that initial ‘I'm drinking wine!’ excitement out of the way. There’s nothing wrong with going in ascending price order or saving the ‘best’ wine for last, but switching it up might be fun and provide some new insights into your question.
Next, I’d say that more expensive wines aren’t necessarily ‘better.’ To point again to our blind tastings, that’s a big reason why we do them in the first place. We remove any expectation about a wine by not knowing who produced it or how much it costs. It really does keep the tastings fair, and in my experience, it’s not unusual for a less expensive wine to score better than something pricier.
I think you should also consider the difference between quality and style. Some styles will just appeal to certain palates—everyone’s taste buds and experience of pleasure from wine are different—and that’s perfectly awesome.
I will also concede that often, the best of the less expensive wines are made in styles that are more accessible to more palates. They might be made from riper grapes, or blends that are carefully calibrated to appeal to a wide range of consumers. They may have a touch of sweetness that helps round out the flavors, and they probably have less oak tannins, which might come across as astringent or drying.
All of these things, broadly speaking, can help make a wine more appealing to a palate that hasn’t been exposed to that much wine. Think about how a light beer might be friendlier to beer beginners than a bitter IPA, or a mellow Irish whiskey might be more crowd-pleasing than a peated Scotch. I don’t judge—as long as someone is enjoying wine, I consider it a win.
—Dr. Vinny
