I've never been able to understand why people claim that no wine is better than another, or coffee, or tea, or anything. Do a lot of people have very insensitive taste buds? There is most definitely a correlation between price and quality. Very cheap wines are most often garbage, and very expensive wines are almost surely good, and usually exquisite, as long as they have not turned to vinegar. That being said, it is not necessary to spend a fortune on a wine to get a delectable experience. I've had $15 dollar wines that I have much preferred to $30 wines. But I find it unlikely that I'd prefer a $10 wine to a $100 dollar wine. Note also that some wines have a better price to quality ratio: I'm more likely to prefer a $50 Bordeaux than a $50 Chilean wine. What's more, does anyone think that "movie appreciation" is bullshit because some reviewers will give one star while others give four to the same movie?
Another thing that happens is that certain wines, e.g. Chateauneuf-du-Pape, are just never as cheap as others, and cheaper wines just typically don't have their flavor profile. So if you want that certain taste because whatever food you're pairing it with would be matched better, then you'll find yourself spending a little more, not fundamentally on quality, but on variety. This leads to the tinted white wine "experiment": if you know what you're drinking, you know what you're looking for (the test is sort of interesting, but I don't see it as evidence that wine is bullshit). Recognition is one of the main sources of pleasure in a lot of things. Consider a neophyte looking at oil paintings: many people are baffled by the prices some of them sell for. But for someone that recognizes the evolution of a certain genre, style, and techniques, it may not be so incomprehensible. Similarly, if a flavor profile only appears to exist in certain more expensive wines, one guzzler may appreciate looking for its subtleties. That they would not notice them if they weren't told which wine they were downing is entirely possible.
Lastly, I'm not sure I understand people's gripe with using words like asphalt, tar, leather, tobacco, etc. Flavors, in wine or anything, usually fall into three categories: vegetal, animal, or mineral. If you've picked out a characteristic flavor in what you're drinking, it is not hard to categorize it within those three. What is more difficult is to make this observation more precise, and if you have the enlightenment to see that asphalt is actually what you're reminded of, then why not use the word? It doesn't follow that just because you wouldn't eat asphalt, you could not appreciate the playfulness detecting this aroma.
Maybe you're right, but to be sure you should give your friend a few hundred, let him go buy a couple of different wines and blind test you. Record both how you like each wine and what you think it cost. Also for fun, write down the tastes and compare to the description (asphalt etc). Film this and put it on youtube so we all can see. I'd be willing to donate a few bucks for this, anyone else?
Another thing that happens is that certain wines, e.g. Chateauneuf-du-Pape, are just never as cheap as others, and cheaper wines just typically don't have their flavor profile. So if you want that certain taste because whatever food you're pairing it with would be matched better, then you'll find yourself spending a little more, not fundamentally on quality, but on variety. This leads to the tinted white wine "experiment": if you know what you're drinking, you know what you're looking for (the test is sort of interesting, but I don't see it as evidence that wine is bullshit). Recognition is one of the main sources of pleasure in a lot of things. Consider a neophyte looking at oil paintings: many people are baffled by the prices some of them sell for. But for someone that recognizes the evolution of a certain genre, style, and techniques, it may not be so incomprehensible. Similarly, if a flavor profile only appears to exist in certain more expensive wines, one guzzler may appreciate looking for its subtleties. That they would not notice them if they weren't told which wine they were downing is entirely possible.
Lastly, I'm not sure I understand people's gripe with using words like asphalt, tar, leather, tobacco, etc. Flavors, in wine or anything, usually fall into three categories: vegetal, animal, or mineral. If you've picked out a characteristic flavor in what you're drinking, it is not hard to categorize it within those three. What is more difficult is to make this observation more precise, and if you have the enlightenment to see that asphalt is actually what you're reminded of, then why not use the word? It doesn't follow that just because you wouldn't eat asphalt, you could not appreciate the playfulness detecting this aroma.