Former wine store worker here. Was it the case that the Silver Oak bottle probably needed some time to open up?
Still, I agree with your general thrust. I find that my favorite wines, especially per dollar spent, are between $8-20.
Still, I agree with your general thrust. I find that my favorite wines, especially per dollar spent, are between $8-20.
This was a long time ago so it's hard to say. But I've had plenty of reds that tasted great straight out of the bottle, so IMHO any wine that needs to "open up" is not as good as one that doesn't. Also, while it is absolutely true that the taste of a wine will change over the course of an evening, it's far from clear how much of this is due to the flavor of the wine changing and how much due to your perceptions changing. Taste buds can get fatigued (I get "wined out" after trying 5 or 6 different wines) and food makes a huge difference too.
My bottom line: I now know plenty of wines that reliably taste great (to me) straight out of the gate and keep tasting great through the whole bottle even if I keep it for a couple of days, and which cost a lot less than Silver Oak. So I just drink those :-)
Yikes. Gonna have to disagree with you on that. The effect of a wine being aerated/oxidized after being opened and/or decanted is obvious even to a casual wine drinker.
> I now know plenty of wines that reliably taste great (to me) straight out of the gate and keep tasting great through the whole bottle even if I keep it for a couple of days
And, by the same token, the taste of red wine degrades fast and is generally completely unrecognizable within 24-48 hours of opening, even if it's well kept with a fancy stopper.
Reading those two comments of yours makes me seriously doubt your ability to make observations that generalize to other people.
If I trust you to make my food in secret, out of sight, I trust you to open my wine in secret, out of sight.
I've seen a few use those aerating pourers, which is better than nothing.
There are a huge range of wines that need to be decanted. The effect is not only obvious but marvelous, how they start smelling and evolve into something much deeper, specially on the oldest bottles.
Same with the degradation. I have a vacuum pump for the bottles I left open and the degradation is still obvious.
> Reading those two comments of yours makes me seriously doubt your ability to make observations that generalize to other people.
Two responses:
1. What I've said here is not based just on my own experience, but also on the firsthand observations of other people who have participated in blind tastings along with me. And...
2. The general impossibility of generalizing one's own subjective experience to other people when it comes to wine is kind of my whole point.
After having had a lot of moderately expensive wine over the past few years, I'm sometimes surprised when I go back to a $5 bottle that I like. Usually if I think about it harder, I find that I'm enjoying a combination of sweetness and oak that are pleasant, but not really that fun to dwell on. It's similar to that balance of salt, sugar, and fat that snack foods use to be broadly liked but not have much depth.
Not to say that such wines are bad, but I think you're missing the point to say that expensive wines are supposed to be appreciated by the masses.
Sure, that's why we repeat the experiment regularly (though less formally than we used to). In fact, we just did it a few weeks ago with a friend who is a really hard-core wine snob. He has a 10,000 bottle collection in off-site temperature controlled storage. And he's not just a rich asshole showing off his wealth. He's upper-middle class and really passionate and knowledgeable about wine, as is his wife. Both of them rated the Barefoot cab very highly. No Silver Oak in the lineup this time, but some very comparable bottles, like a Franciscan and a Veeder Reserve, alongside a few other varietals (we were actually trying to see if we could pick out varietals blind). The Barefoot didn't come out on top, but it made a very respectable showing. One of the things we rated the wines on was, "How much would you guess this wine sells for?" My friend gave the Barefoot a $50 rating, and his wife said $130.
I'm curious how the other varietals did. Cabs have so many flavors going on that it might be easier for cheaper wines to "hide behind" oak and alcohol. (Relatedly, the general wisdom for homebrewers is that Budweiser-style beers are much harder to emulate at home than IPAs, because any bad flavors in a light beer will stick out much more than a flavorful ale.) I've heard some wine people talk about how hard it is to find "good" Pinot Noirs for under $30, presumably because that grape has a bit more nuance and it's hard for (at least the snobby) people to find cheaper bottles that don't have sharp edges.
I'd certainly encourage people to try natural wines if they do a tasting. They're on the cheaper end of the good wine spectrum, don't need aging, and almost universally taste better than the median wine at 2x the price. Something like Raisins Gaulois is a good starting point.
I respectfully disagree. Basically I stick to cheap wines (for budget reasons), and my decanter will turn almost any unbearable red into acceptable. A newly opened red sometimes just needs to be smoothed out via air a bit -- at the extreme of things, if you leave a glass out overnight it will be flat (not to mention, the alcohol will have evaporated of course).
edit: not sure if "evaporate" is the right scientific term
Myhrvold in Modernist Cuisine recommends to use a... blender. It really works ;-)
source: have left a glass of wine on my nitestand before, and in the morning it was glass of sour grape juice.
[1] http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/ret... (see page 12)