from the department of obviousness department

i am glad i have never bothered to figure out wine, since apperently ratings are almost totally subjective. anyone even remotely familiar with human nature should be unsurprised by the following phenomenon:

[the experiments] were done by frederic brochet, of the university of bordeaux. in the first test, brochet invited 57 wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. the wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. but that didn't stop the experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to describe red wines. one expert praised its "jamminess," while another enjoyed its "crushed red fruit." not a single one noticed it was actually a white wine.

the second test brochet conducted was even more damning. he took a middling bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. one bottle was a fancy grand-cru. the other bottle was an ordinary vin du table. despite the fact that they were actually being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the differently labeled bottles nearly opposite ratings. the grand cru was "agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded," while the vin du table was "weak, short, light, flat and faulty". forty experts said the wine with the fancy label was worth drinking, while only 12 said the cheap wine was.

this was really just an excuse to mention that i know someone who mixes $4 red wine with diet mountain dew. i guess she is on to something. you recoil in horror now, but if we gave it to you out of a fancy bottle in some oak-paneled room you would probably commend its fruity palate and "almost fizzy" texture.