Lodi Amateur Vintners Assoc. Annual Blind Tasting

Price seems to be a major factor in establishing our expectations of enjoyment of a wine. “You get what you pay for,” is a phrase everyone has heard. But after splurging on a fancy bottle of wine, we are frequently reminded that the price on the bottle more truthfully reflects the winemaker’s expectations of earnings than any enjoyment the consumer might derive from it.  What is the relationship between the price a consumer pays and what they receive?  Can wine enthusiasts effectively distinguish between budget wines and premium wines when tasting blind? 

These were two of the questions that were addressed at the Lodi Amateur Vintners Association annual blind tasting held here at Heritage Oak Winery Thursday, July 24, 2008.  This year the theme was “Pleasure vs. Price.”  The line up included wines in two price categories: those under $10 found at a local supermarket and those over $30 from a local wine specialty store. 

About 40 people participated in this activity, though some couples worked together.  Participants were asked to complete a five question survey while tasting the wines.  The questions were used to determine how the taster perceived the quality of the wine,  their level of enjoyment of the wine, and the taster’s willingness to serve this wine to “an important dinner guest”.  Most importantly, however, the tasters were asked  in two separate questions, to say whether they felt each wine would be found selling for less than $10 at a supermarker or whether the wine would be sold for more than $30 at a wine specialty shop.  To each of these last two questions dealing with price category, the tasters were asked to respond either Yes or No.  A “No” response meant that the wine belonged to another category of a different price range not specified in the question. 

The wines chosen were all of the variety Zinfandel, though the appellation and the vintages varied. Each bottle was bagged in plain brown bag and numbered. Foil capsules were completely removed. Tasters did not know the name of the producers or the price of the individual bottles.  They were only told that the wines were all Zin and cost either below $10 or above $30.  Three bottles of each wine were provided.

The six wines were served in the following order: 1)  Seghesio 2004 Sonoma Old Vine Zinfandel purchased for $32; 2) Ravenswood 2004 California Zinfandel purchased for $8.99; 3) Fetzer Vineyards 2004 Valley Oaks California Zinfandel purchased for $8.99; 4) Lucas Winery 2003 Lodi Zinfandel ”ZinStar Vineyard” purchased for $29.99; 5) Barefoot Non-Vintage California Zinfandel purchased for $5.99; and 6) Michael-David ”Lust” 2005 Lodi Zinfandel purchased for $56.99.

Results: After all the wines had been tasted, the participants were asked to show their responses by raising their hands.  The results here, in percentage terms, describe how the group felt as a whole.  Individuals may have responded differently to any particular question.

By a majority vote, the participants were able to correctly categorize 66% of the wines, or four out of the six. The four that were correctly pegged were the three budget wines and the Michael-David “Lust”. 

The Seghesio Zin ($32) gave the tasters trouble.  While 81% felt this wine was of good to superior quality, the tasters were split on whether this wine would sell for less than $10.  However, only 16% correctly identified this wine as one that would sell for more than $30.

The Lucas Zin ($29.99) was also misidentified, partially due to the fact that one of the three bottles had a slight corky aroma. 65% felt this wine was of superior quality and 60% agreed it was enjoyable, however only 35% correctly identified this wine as belonging to the premium wine category.  The same percentage said it belonged to the budget category. To each of the two category questions, 65% felt the wine should be in a category in between budget and premium.

The Fetzer and Ravenswood wines were both identified as being budget wines with 70% of the votes.  Neither of these two wines received accolades on the enjoyment or quality questions.

The Barefoot Zin ($5.99) was one of the big surprises. 85% of the participants found it to be of superior quality with 75% saying the wine was highly enjoyable.  When asked if this was a budget wine, only 50% responded yes.  When asked if it was a premium wine, 40% said yes.  When asked if they would proudly serve this one at a fancy dinner party to “important” people, 70% said yes. 

The Michael-David “Lust” was identified by 100% of the group to be a superior quality wine.  90% stated they would be proud to serve the wine to someone important.  Only 10% felt is was a budget wine and 90% correctly identified this as a premium wine.

Conclusion: In most cases, the group was able to determine the price category of the wine by tasting.  They correctly identified categories of two thirds of the wines.  This may say more about the budget wines than the premiums, however, because 66% of the lower category were identified where only 33% of the premium wines were.  One might conclude that it is easier to spot a cheap wine. 

However, in terms of enjoyment and appreciation of the quality of  the wines, the group enjoyed/appreciated all three of the premium wines to a greater extent than the three budget wines.  This statement includes the two mis-identified premium wines, which the group agreed were both enjoyable and of high quality. 

So maybe you do get what you pay for.  But the truth is, you can spend all you want, but there are some darn good wines out there for $5.99.