There's a documentary called Somm that follows a few people as they prepare for the Master Sommelier exam, it's impressive how precisely they can determine the year and region of a wine.
Example tasting from the doc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKNmcCCE15E
A famous version of this was the "Pepsi challenge". It turns out that people preferred the taste of pepsi in the test conditions, but coke in other, longer testing conditions. So part of it is biochemical (e.g. the taste you experience on the first bite/sip of something is not the same as the 20th) but some is also mental. Your experience of the taste of something can change with the environment you sample it in.
The question at hand is whether a cheap/expensive wine, of the same type, would matter in the boar stew example.
Personally, I have no reason to believe that a more expensive wine would only shine under these types of conditions. I also think it's a matter of subjective taste, and there is no arguing matters of taste ;).
From the non-oenophile POV, my objection is the pretension of objectivity. "This wine is better than the other one" is a subjective statement masquerading as an objective one.
That's how it is for most everyone, I think the disconnect is that the newbie isn't aware of that and make take the "expert's" opinion out of context or too serious. And the experts can be jerks too, but I think it's more people unfamiliar with wine seem to come into contact with the jerks first for some reason and wine gets a bad knock because of that.
Is there a wine for having with bad people?
This propensity (being "fooled" by white/red of a wine) is very often cited as "proof" that wine drinkers don't know what they are talking about.
In fact, the broad taste profiles of either white or red grapes - and the difference in expression of those profiles based on temperature - can make it very difficult to discern certain reds from certain whites.
"Fooling" someone with red vs. white really isn't that interesting at all.
On the other hand. I don't know about those wines your are talking about but throwing, for example, a 34 years old wine to compete in a blind test against a cheap modern wine is a bad idea and I might prefer the modern one too in that setting. You need to prepare a good meal or cheese to have that old wine with, a table and good people, time for the wine to breath, good glasses... a pleasure setting. Then, only then the 34 years old wine will reveal why it costs that much.
I still agree with you that there are many good wines on the low price range, and people should drink what it tastes best for them.
The wine blender idea seems terrible to me. I can't believe it will output anything good, but hey, I would try it.
I'm from a wine region in Spain, by the way.