I drink a lot of wine, probably averaging half a bottle an evening. The Wives have grown used to the sound of a bottle popping after 8 p.m. I have to refuel my Italian blood at least daily.
I was a 3-buck Chuck drinker for most of 2007, but refined my taste after visiting Tuscany last fall. Since then, I've been all about Chianti, Syrah, Pinot Noir, et all. Red, red, red and more red wine. Except, as Paul Giamatti so eloquently stated in "Sideways," "I'm not drinking any fucking Merlot!"
With these variety of wines come a price, and I've slowly climbed from 3-buck Chuck (except when Matt Wood is in town) to and plateaued at the $10 range. I can score rooster-label Chianti Classico's at Trader Joe's at this price, which I can live with.
But according to Chicago Tribune article, price doesn't indicate quality, and may even mislead people to think that they like a wine more than they actually do.
In a California Institute of Technology study, "Twenty volunteers were wired up for brain scans and told they would be tasting five different cabernet sauvignons. In reality, there were only three wines -- two were offered twice but priced differently... Volunteers liked the $90 wine better when they knew it was priced at $90 instead of $10. And they liked the $5 wine better when it was listed at $45. Interestingly, the scientists found that the $5 wine scored best when the volunteers had no price comparisons."
Now I'm really tempted to blind taste-test myself to learn if I like that 3-buck Chuck Cab Sav more than my $10 Cab Sav. However, I don't know how accurate my perceptions will be after I've downed both bottles. I'll have to try to find out.