When cheap means good

I have often wondered how many people who drink wine can actually tell the difference between the cheap plonk that they normally drink and the expensive stuff they buy to impress their guests.

And my conclusion is: a damned sight fewer than you think. Which matches almost exactly the conclusion drawn following what seems to me a rather clumsy experiment conducted at the recent Edinburgh Science Festival involving 578 members of the public taking part in a "blind" taste challenge.

Each was offered a range of red and white wines costing less than $10 and others priced between $20 and $60 and asked to say which were cheap and which were expensive. Even if they took a guess, they should by the laws of chance have been able to get it 50 per cent right. And this was exactly what they did, which means they couldn't distinguish between the wines by taste alone.

Professor of psychology Richard Wiseman, who led the research, called it "a remarkable result", a conclusion that has already drawn a great deal of flak. And so it should. What else did he expect taking a bunch of people who might or might not be wine drinkers, getting them to taste a selection of wines chosen apparently on price alone, then asking them to differentiate between cheap and expensive?

The fact that there are plenty of good wines selling at the moment at $10 and just as many ordinary ones at over $20 doesn't even come into the equation.

Quite frankly the result comes as no surprise to me; not after another, similar tasting in which the most popular red wine turned out to be Blue Nun, a white dyed red. All the Edinburgh study does for me is confirm a long-held view that for up to 50 per cent of all wine drinkers, in this country anyway, cost is as important, if not more important, than taste when it comes to choosing wine.

For them a pleasant taste is all that is required. They are not into swirling the glass and sniffing and slurping the wine to really appreciate and taste the stuff; they are just into drinking it.

You have only to watch someone lower a plastic thimbleful of wine at one of those so-called tastings in a supermarket and pronounce what they've downed "a lovely wine" to know exactly what I mean.

The clincher is then watching them toddle off and look for something cheaper.

And why not? I am sick and tired of visiting people's homes and being offered a drink followed by an apology that it's only cheap wine. My standard reply is to ask them if they enjoy it and when they answer yes to say "Well, so will I". And usually I do.

Ad Feedback There is nothing to be embarrassed about and there is no guarantee that something better (and invariably more expensive) will appeal in the same way as the cheap stuff. But given time and a more educated taste it might.

A selection of some of the best "cheap" wines from this week's national specials:

The Church Road Range (excluding syrah, pinot noir and reserves) $14.99
The pinot gris, which usually retails at about $26, is particularly good buying. Mouthfilling, smooth, with a hint of sweetness.

The Lindauer range of sparkling wines (excluding reserves) $9.99
Five bubblies, including a sauvignon blanc, that usually sell at $16. Selaks Premium Selection range $8.99: Looking for an easy-drinking red with plenty of fruit and flavour, then go for the Hawke's Bay Merlot, which is usually on the shelf at about $18.

The Shingle Peak range, $10.99
The crisp and vibrantly fruity Marlborough sauvignon blanc is always good buying, even at its recommended retail price of $16.

The Vidal range, $10.99
Few wineries are more consistent and this range offers some of the best-value wines on the market. Go for the merlot cabernet sauvignon (usually $21, pictured), which if it's the 2006 needs drinking now. There's a good excuse.