But I'd put money that every experienced taster was able to deduce in blind tasting the bordeaux from the (insert other wine type??). Indeed as I understand it from watching Frasier there are clubs which do these blind tastings all the time.

In other words. I may tell you this bordeaux is cheap and acidic, but at no point was I mistaking it for a bottle of Rose.

I think when you try to trick somebody into thinking a wine is something different from what it is, that's very much different from saying we can't tell apart wines at all.

I agree with the general inability of wine tasters to discern nearly as much as they believe, just not this particular example.

Expecting to taste a red wine and getting a disguised white wine means you're not ready to appreciate a white wine. It's a whole different world so no wonder they found it off.

It would have actually been a better call to stick to white wine, no coloring added, and differentiate only with the label.

They've done studies like that too, with similar results.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tas...

Oh really?

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/does-all-wine-t...

A similar argument can be made about confusing two types of potato vs a potato and a parsnip. Yes pleasure is subjective, and taste is to some extent. In general there are limits to this effect.

Yes, I could effectively overcook the taste out of both things, mush them into a texture-less paste, and then stuff them full of enough herbs and spices to mask any semblance of their original flavour. At that point perhaps I've won - but then I'm not sure it meets the claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sommelier

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2204371/

"We see something, and we simply presuppose how it's going to smell and taste. We know that apples, for instance, are crisp, sweet and drippy. But if we close our eyes, hold our nose and bite into an onion, chances hard we won't be able to tell the difference because onions are also crisp, sweet and drippy."

It works the other way too, if you want to freak someone out switch the coke/beer in their can with OJ while they're distracted. They will act like they have been poisoned.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/02/the-subjectivity-o...

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/does-all-wine-t...

I realize that you have a study that's vaguely related but the two are not the same. Not at all.

What are the credentials of the people on the "wine tasting panel"? I can't find that information anywhere.

This oft referenced study took oenology students and asked them to use adjectives to describe the odors of the wine. The only wines tested were white...and white with food coloring. It is unfortunate that red wine wasn't actually tested, as it would provide an interesting contrast, nor was taste actually tested at all. So as is all that you can go on is that given what appears to be a red wine, students who presumably have motives other than being entirely straightforward use red wine-type terminology.

It is an interesting study, but is not quite the trump card that so many think it is.

Further, it's a little silly how people are taking products with minor taste differences (most beers, wines, ryes, etc, are made with almost identical processes, yielding close to identical results), and then presuming to claim that the same applies to things that are dramatically different. That someone couldn't tell the expensive wine from the table wine does not prove that someone can't tell a beef burger from a veggie burger.

Well, yes. That's true. Don't confuse my contribution to the topic drift for a rejection of that point.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/tastes-...