But coming from that, I think the best argument of making all tax returns public would be to make sex discrimination in the workplace that much harder to hide. "Why is there this pay gap between male and female employees?" would become very public very quickly.
To be fair then you would have to release people's qualifications, years of experience, time off work, age at recruitment, years in current rank etc otherwise a lot of overexcited campaigners are going to draw completely the wrong conclusions from the data, and would no doubt be shocked to learn that although there are undoubtedly difference in pay from gender, there are also differences of pay from all sorts of other things, and some times the two are linked in the most unlikely way.
Twitter keyboard warriors calmly and rationally analysing data...dream on....there would be more bollocks infographics (yes I am thinking of you "Dr" Eoin) than I have had hot dinners.
Or- you could have people like me who are just terrible about declaring expenses and things I can claim against, or offset earnings, or utilise straightforward tax efficiencies. If you saw my tax return it looks like I just get income and don't spend any money at all.
As there are tax evaders, there are uninterested, lazy, half job types who just pay far more than they should. Osborne recently called people who do not make the most of tax efficiencies stupid. I rather think of them as people who really are not that obsessed by making money.
Personally, I'm all in favour of having all tax returns made public. After the initial culture shock, we could all grow up.
would you like to lead by example and post yours on PB ?
This is what's done in Norway - seems to work uncontroversially there. I'd be happy to do it myself, though they're unexciting - a bunch at 20% and a bunch at 40%.
Though the really interesting bit is what people deliberately do not declare on their tax return. What they declare is tax paid, the untaxed money is not on their, whether cash in hand or undeclared off shore assets.
Or- you could have people like me who are just terrible about declaring expenses and things I can claim against, or offset earnings, or utilise straightforward tax efficiencies. If you saw my tax return it looks like I just get income and don't spend any money at all.
As there are tax evaders, there are uninterested, lazy, half job types who just pay far more than they should. Osborne recently called people who do not make the most of tax efficiencies stupid. I rather think of them as people who really are not that obsessed by making money.
Personally, I'm all in favour of having all tax returns made public. After the initial culture shock, we could all grow up.
would you like to lead by example and post yours on PB ?
This is what's done in Norway - seems to work uncontroversially there. I'd be happy to do it myself, though they're unexciting - a bunch at 20% and a bunch at 40%.
Though the really interesting bit is what people deliberately do not declare on their tax return. What they declare is tax paid, the untaxed money is not on their, whether cash in hand or undeclared off shore assets.
Cheers to all at the pb drinkies!
IANAE but whose tax return shows money spent? Plus the fabled "undeclared assets" no assets are declared on a tax return whether held off shore or at Barclays in the High Street if there has been no realisation of a profit/loss.
Edit: this could be the most boring post I've ever written and the competition is fierce.
You have expenses- and you have profit/loss to carry forward, and you have all sorts of things you can use to claim against, a million things, and you have money you can put into pensions....so please....
Not everyone can be bothered investing time and energy chasing tax efficiencies. I am happy to pay the tax that I do.
Or- you could have people like me who are just terrible about declaring expenses and things I can claim against, or offset earnings, or utilise straightforward tax efficiencies. If you saw my tax return it looks like I just get income and don't spend any money at all.
As there are tax evaders, there are uninterested, lazy, half job types who just pay far more than they should. Osborne recently called people who do not make the most of tax efficiencies stupid. I rather think of them as people who really are not that obsessed by making money.
Personally, I'm all in favour of having all tax returns made public. After the initial culture shock, we could all grow up.
would you like to lead by example and post yours on PB ?
This is what's done in Norway - seems to work uncontroversially there. I'd be happy to do it myself, though they're unexciting - a bunch at 20% and a bunch at 40%.
Though the really interesting bit is what people deliberately do not declare on their tax return. What they declare is tax paid, the untaxed money is not on their, whether cash in hand or undeclared off shore assets.
Cheers to all at the pb drinkies!
IANAE but whose tax return shows money spent? Plus the fabled "undeclared assets" no assets are declared on a tax return whether held off shore or at Barclays in the High Street if there has been no realisation of a profit/loss.
I also think when push comes to shove, Cameron is hardly glowing with pride that his dad devoted his obvious intelligence and gainful employment to ensure that rich people pay less tax. Apart from drug dealing, people trafficking, or pimping, I doubt there are many professions less worthy of respect. But he's his dad, and his dad has used his wealth to give his son the best possible life. And DC has turned out remarkably well and has a lot to thank his dad for.
It would be a better narrative for DC if his father had been a celebrated war hero, or nobel peace prize winner. But you take what you get.
Cameron speaks warmly of his late father and is thankful to him for a happy childhood. But Cameron has come under fire for the decisions of his father. The pinkos don't like the fact that Cameron went to Eton - presumably decided by his father (and mother?) . And Cameron was presumably persuaded to buy into the fund which the father set up. However, I suspect Cameron has no regrets.
Cameron has come under fire for appearing not to tell the truth. He didn't choose his school or his Dad's occupation, he did choose to not be entirely honest.
He did not lie. It can be said that he did not initially volunteer the complete story but that's not the same as lying.
Is it any of you that are trying to back Corbyn at just above 6-1 to be next PM?
I've laid most of the near 7 stuff, and I don't propose to take you on in any significant size, but I'd sort of be interested to hear thoughts on this. (My contention is that the next PM almost has to be a Tory if Cameron delivers on his 'no third term' thing)
I think I may miss JC when he finally goes - he's a great source of free money in my view.
You have expenses- and you have profit/loss to carry forward, and you have all sorts of things you can use to claim against, a million things, and you have money you can put into pensions....so please....
Or- you could have people like me who are just terrible about declaring expenses and things I can claim against, or offset earnings, or utilise straightforward tax efficiencies. If you saw my tax return it looks like I just get income and don't spend any money at all.
As there are tax evaders, there are uninterested, lazy, half job types who just pay far more than they should. Osborne recently called people who do not make the most of tax efficiencies stupid. I rather think of them as people who really are not that obsessed by making money.
Personally, I'm all in favour of having all tax returns made public. After the initial culture shock, we could all grow up.
would you like to lead by example and post yours on PB ?
This is what's done in Norway - seems to work uncontroversially there. I'd be happy to do it myself, though they're unexciting - a bunch at 20% and a bunch at 40%.
Though the really interesting bit is what people deliberately do not declare on their tax return. What they declare is tax paid, the untaxed money is not on their, whether cash in hand or undeclared off shore assets.
Cheers to all at the pb drinkies!
IANAE but whose tax return shows money spent? Plus the fabled "undeclared assets" no assets are declared on a tax return whether held off shore or at Barclays in the High Street if there has been no realisation of a profit/loss.
Yes I dare say you are correct mine was one of those posts that as you write you lose interest in half way through and should have deleted.
the Government will be restrained in their use of public money and have no wish to compete with the umbrella campaign organisations whose job it will be to lead the yes and no campaigns?
I also think when push comes to shove, Cameron is hardly glowing with pride that his dad devoted his obvious intelligence and gainful employment to ensure that rich people pay less tax. Apart from drug dealing, people trafficking, or pimping, I doubt there are many professions less worthy of respect. But he's his dad, and his dad has used his wealth to give his son the best possible life. And DC has turned out remarkably well and has a lot to thank his dad for.
It would be a better narrative for DC if his father had been a celebrated war hero, or nobel peace prize winner. But you take what you get.
Cameron speaks warmly of his late father and is thankful to him for a happy childhood. But Cameron has come under fire for the decisions of his father. The pinkos don't like the fact that Cameron went to Eton - presumably decided by his father (and mother?) . And Cameron was presumably persuaded to buy into the fund which the father set up. However, I suspect Cameron has no regrets.
Cameron has come under fire for appearing not to tell the truth. He didn't choose his school or his Dad's occupation, he did choose to not be entirely honest.
He did not lie. It can be said that he did not initially volunteer the complete story but that's not the same as lying.
He was being textbook economic with the actualite. There should have been someone sensible who war gamed where it was headed, how bad it could get, and what questions would be asked, and cut it off instantly.
Sorry. How could I get sued? Who mentioned anything about lying.
I was trying to be nice to Cameron. His dad is his dad. I was simply saying that working as a stockbroker essentially to help people pay less tax, is hardly going to win his father any humanitarian awards.
I also think when push comes to shove, Cameron is hardly glowing with pride that his dad devoted his obvious intelligence and gainful employment to ensure that rich people pay less tax. Apart from drug dealing, people trafficking, or pimping, I doubt there are many professions less worthy of respect. But he's his dad, and his dad has used his wealth to give his son the best possible life. And DC has turned out remarkably well and has a lot to thank his dad for.
It would be a better narrative for DC if his father had been a celebrated war hero, or nobel peace prize winner. But you take what you get.
Cameron speaks warmly of his late father and is thankful to him for a happy childhood. But Cameron has come under fire for the decisions of his father. The pinkos don't like the fact that Cameron went to Eton - presumably decided by his father (and mother?) . And Cameron was presumably persuaded to buy into the fund which the father set up. However, I suspect Cameron has no regrets.
Cameron has come under fire for appearing not to tell the truth. He didn't choose his school or his Dad's occupation, he did choose to not be entirely honest.
He did not lie. It can be said that he did not initially volunteer the complete story but that's not the same as lying.
Tyson: "his dad devoted his obvious intelligence and gainful employment to ensure that rich people pay less tax. "
No he didn't. He was a stockbroker devoting his obvious intelligence to help individuals and institutions make profitable investments. Anyone would be most unwise to take tax advice from him.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
Semantics...to encourage people to invest in tax havens is obviously about ensuring that they pay less tax on their investments. Otherwise, why the hell bother with setting up an offshore in the first place? He could have done just as well being a stockbroker attached to Lloyds in Abingdon.
Tyson: "his dad devoted his obvious intelligence and gainful employment to ensure that rich people pay less tax. "
No he didn't. He was a stockbroker devoting his obvious intelligence to help individuals and institutions make profitable investments. Anyone would be most unwise to take tax advice from him.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Related to a pet/conspiracy theory that keeps cropping up on here. One that rcs might be coloured ever so slightly sceptical about
Semantics...to encourage people to invest in tax havens is obviously about ensuring that they pay less tax on their investments. Otherwise, why the hell bother with setting up an offshore in the first place? He could have done just as well being a stockbroker attached to Lloyds in Abingdon.
Tyson: "his dad devoted his obvious intelligence and gainful employment to ensure that rich people pay less tax. "
No he didn't. He was a stockbroker devoting his obvious intelligence to help individuals and institutions make profitable investments. Anyone would be most unwise to take tax advice from him.
Honestly, and without telling though all the comments, I don't think that's fair. If a fund is domicilied in a tax neutral jurisdiction it's not about the investors paying less tax. They will pay the same rate regardless. It's about the amount thar can be returned to that investor and on which they pay tax.
Incidentally, anybody who has ever flown has taken advantage of this given aircraft finance/ownership structuring. I can give more detail if required but one suspects that facts are generally unwelcome in this discussion.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Related to a pet/conspiracy theory that keeps cropping up on here. One that rcs might be coloured ever so slightly sceptical about
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Hunchman is of the view that there is a firm on the Finchley Road that is the centre of a giant conspiracy.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Hunchman is of the view that there is a firm on the Finchley Road that is the centre of a giant conspiracy.
Tyson: "He could have done just as well being a stockbroker attached to Lloyds in Abingdon. "
I had to smile at your boyish innocence. Have you ever tried to process a transaction involving foreign shares through the branch of a UK bank? After 1982 it was at last possible to buy shares in a foreign currency without going through hoops. The easiest method, especially if you also wanted to do so in partnership with non-UK investors was to set up an offshore fund, as Cameron's father did. The tax effect for him was the same as if he had set it up here.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Hunchman is of the view that there is a firm on the Finchley Road that is the centre of a giant conspiracy.
Tyson: "He could have done just as well being a stockbroker attached to Lloyds in Abingdon. "
I had to smile at your boyish innocence. Have you ever tried to process a transaction involving foreign shares through the branch of a UK bank? After 1982 it was at last possible to buy shares in a foreign currency without going through hoops. The easiest method, especially if you also wanted to do so in partnership with non-UK investors was to set up an offshore fund, as Cameron's father did. The tax effect for him was the same as if he had set it up here.
Presumably those criticising Blairmore Holdings never buy anything from duty free when travelling but always wait until they are back in the UK to buy it so that they can pay the most tax possible.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Related to a pet/conspiracy theory that keeps cropping up on here. One that rcs might be coloured ever so slightly sceptical about
Conspiracy theories rest - usually - on coincidences.
Betgenius - a firm I started in 2000 - was conceived in the Shooting Star because I lived around the corner from there at the time. (As did the co-founder.) It happened to be bought off the shelf, because that's the easiest way to form a company. And it was bought by whichever firm was cheapest when I did the research.
Those coincidences can be twisted into saying that I - and Betgenius Ltd - are part of some giant conspiracy.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Related to a pet/conspiracy theory that keeps cropping up on here. One that rcs might be coloured ever so slightly sceptical about
These 2 links give you some further information, and note I am linking to freely available information on the companies house website:
But of course its just all a whacky massive conspiracy theory! Pull the other one. Note the number of company directorships, dissolved companies (if you look past page 1!) and the numbers of days where just a director for a single day. The information is freely available if you know where to look.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
No value in wine any more in my view. Cheap supermarket plonk is good these days. I can (just about) tell the difference between a supermarket 10 pound bottle and a 200 pound bottle, but I'm not really sure which is the better these days. You can get some really unremarkable wines with a good pedigree for some alarmingly high prices.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
I don't think I'm there but then I'm not anyone who's anyone.
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Hunchman is of the view that there is a firm on the Finchley Road that is the centre of a giant conspiracy.
Is it owned and run by the Lizard Illuminati?
Usual throw someone off the scent nonsense. You can all do a lot better than that!
All of this talk of £100 bottles of wine, lawyers, foreign travel, dinner parties with people who have just sold businesses for hundreds of milllions of pounds and so on is pretty alien to me. The flipside is that I am able to rise to the Brooke challenge (unlike Mr Meek) and publish every tax return I've had to file in the UK. See the empty set below:
(Tbf I think (in common with most of the population) my benefits forms (mostly just child tax credit) would be of very slightly more interest.)
I think I'm slightly disappointed in the PM for apparently not having dodged millions in tax. I took it for granted he was a professional.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
No value in wine any more in my view. Cheap supermarket plonk is good these days. I can (just about) tell the difference between a supermarket 10 pound bottle and a 200 pound bottle, but I'm not really sure which is the better these days. You can get some really unremarkable wines with a good pedigree for some alarmingly high prices.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
I'm not sure I agree but it's subjective rather than objective so no more than a view. Interesting though that GBP10 is your baseline for supermarket plonk as I think I've been spoiled by the Wine Society and where the plonk tide line lies.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
No value in wine any more in my view. Cheap supermarket plonk is good these days. I can (just about) tell the difference between a supermarket 10 pound bottle and a 200 pound bottle, but I'm not really sure which is the better these days. You can get some really unremarkable wines with a good pedigree for some alarmingly high prices.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
Didn't really consider the final comment. The comic thing has happened already, at least in the US. Maybe wargames, ask Nick Palmer Alternatively RPGs - I could do with seeing some value in my Paranoia collection.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
But in general, Parker's high ratings for nasty fruit- and alcohol-heavy reds has distorted the pricing of those wines in the US market. Fortunately, I am a Burgundy man, rather than Cote du Rhone, so my preferences aren't as overpriced as the latter.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
No value in wine any more in my view. Cheap supermarket plonk is good these days. I can (just about) tell the difference between a supermarket 10 pound bottle and a 200 pound bottle, but I'm not really sure which is the better these days. You can get some really unremarkable wines with a good pedigree for some alarmingly high prices.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
Didn't really consider the final comment. The comic thing has happened already, at least in the US. Maybe wargames, ask Nick Palmer Alternatively RPGs - I could do with seeing some value in my Paranoia collection.
In the last few years I've been to all kinds of wine regions and talked to endless vintners and wine makers and chefs and sommeliers and blah
All agree that £50 is about the most you should pay for a bottle of wine. Above that you are simply paying for rarity, snob value, the fact that the Chinese have heard of claret, but not Amarone or Barossa.
Also: screwcaps. Every single winemaker wants to move to screwcaps, but the punters won't 'ave it.
Screwcaps are much easier and seem to be becoming more common. I think it depends partially upon the nation of origin too, the French are far less willing to go to screwcaps than the Australians for instance.
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
But in general, Parker's high ratings for nasty fruit- and alcohol-heavy reds has distorted the pricing of those wines in the US market. Fortunately, I am a Burgundy man, rather than Cote du Rhone, so my preferences aren't as overpriced as the latter.
Agreed 100%. (Except that Red Burgundy is even more ridiculously overpriced than Red Bordeaux.)
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
No value in wine any more in my view. Cheap supermarket plonk is good these days. I can (just about) tell the difference between a supermarket 10 pound bottle and a 200 pound bottle, but I'm not really sure which is the better these days. You can get some really unremarkable wines with a good pedigree for some alarmingly high prices.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
Didn't really consider the final comment. The comic thing has happened already, at least in the US. Maybe wargames, ask Nick Palmer Alternatively RPGs - I could do with seeing some value in my Paranoia collection.
In the last few years I've been to all kinds of wine regions and talked to endless vintners and wine makers and chefs and sommeliers and blah
All agree that £50 is about the most you should pay for a bottle of wine. Above that you are simply paying for rarity, snob value, the fact that the Chinese have heard of claret, but not Amarone or Barossa.
Also: screwcaps. Every single winemaker wants to move to screwcaps, but the punters won't 'ave it.
Which is why there remains value in Italy. I agree. Although I'd substitute Barolo for Barossa.
For sure. It's continental Europeans who resist screwcaps - Anglophones are much more accepting.
But the French, followed by the Italians, Germans, Spanish - where customers loathe screwcaps - are still seen as THE great wine producers and experts, so the rest of the world takes its cue from them.
The fact of the matter is that 80-90% of the wine produced globally is best drunk as put in the bottle by the wine-maker. For these wines, screwcaps are in fact better at preserving the wine at its optimal quality.
It is only for that small percentage of wines that benefit from aging that a cork is a necessity (to allow breathing) and hence a better option.
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
No value in wine any more in my view. Cheap supermarket plonk is good these days. I can (just about) tell the difference between a supermarket 10 pound bottle and a 200 pound bottle, but I'm not really sure which is the better these days. You can get some really unremarkable wines with a good pedigree for some alarmingly high prices.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
Didn't really consider the final comment. The comic thing has happened already, at least in the US. Maybe wargames, ask Nick Palmer Alternatively RPGs - I could do with seeing some value in my Paranoia collection.
In the last few years I've been to all kinds of wine regions and talked to endless vintners and wine makers and chefs and sommeliers and blah
All agree that £50 is about the most you should pay for a bottle of wine. Above that you are simply paying for rarity, snob value, the fact that the Chinese have heard of claret, but not Amarone or Barossa.
Also: screwcaps. Every single winemaker wants to move to screwcaps, but the punters won't 'ave it.
I don't really agree about the £50. Good claret and burgundy from old vintages (or newer ones, for that matter) is bound to cost a lot more and is something fabulous. Actually it's wines under £30 that are more often disappointing, in my experience.
That said, prices for fine wine certainly are driven up by snobbery and general arseholery. But it doesn't make me not want to drink it. (It makes me want to have more money.)
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
But in general, Parker's high ratings for nasty fruit- and alcohol-heavy reds has distorted the pricing of those wines in the US market. Fortunately, I am a Burgundy man, rather than Cote du Rhone, so my preferences aren't as overpriced as the latter.
Agreed 100%. (Except that Red Burgundy is even more ridiculously overpriced than Red Bordeaux.)
Alas, tis true. I ruefully remember living (in sequence) in Geneva, Fontainebleau and Maison Laffite 1988-1991. Four years of being able to get in a car, drive less than 90 minutes, and be looking at La Tache, then dine in a local restaurant on sumptious food with a bottle of Echezeaux for less than 20 quid.
For sure. It's continental Europeans who resist screwcaps - Anglophones are much more accepting.
But the French, followed by the Italians, Germans, Spanish - where customers loathe screwcaps - are still seen as THE great wine producers and experts, so the rest of the world takes its cue from them.
The fact of the matter is that 80-90% of the wine produced globally is best drunk as put in the bottle by the wine-maker. For these wines, screwcaps are in fact better at preserving the wine at its optimal quality.
It is only for that small percentage of wines that benefit from aging that a cork is a necessity (to allow breathing) and hence a better option.
I've had VERY famous winemakers tell me personally that even the last supposed "benefit" of cork is a delusion - that wines age just as well with screwcap. And that no one can taste the difference.
And of course with screwcap: no corking.
That's the $60,000 question (literally if it's Chateau Petrus).
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given tvalue trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
Didn't really consider the final comment. The comic thing has happened already, at least in the US. Maybe wargames, ask Nick Palmer Alternatively RPGs - I could do with seeing some value in my Paranoia collection.
In the last few years I've been to all kinds of wine regions and talked to endless vintners and wine makers and chefs and sommeliers and blah
All agree that £50 is about the most you should pay for a bottle of wine. Above that you are simply paying for rarity, snob value, the fact that the Chinese have heard of claret, but not Amarone or Barossa.
Also: screwcaps. Every single winemaker wants to move to screwcaps, but the punters won't 'ave it.
Which is why there remains value in Italy. I agree. Although I'd substitute Barolo for Barossa.
Australia makes some fecking amazing wines now. I did a flying wine safari in Victoria last year (for the Times) - they literally flew me by private plane from the Pinots of the Mornington Peninsula to the sunburnt vineyards of Yarra Valley.
1000 Candles was one of the best wines I have ever tasted.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
But in general, Parker's high ratings for nasty fruit- and alcohol-heavy reds has distorted the pricing of those wines in the US market. Fortunately, I am a Burgundy man, rather than Cote du Rhone, so my preferences aren't as overpriced as the latter.
Agreed 100%. (Except that Red Burgundy is even more ridiculously overpriced than Red Bordeaux.)
Alas, tis true. I ruefully remember living (in sequence) in Geneva, Fontainebleau and Maison Laffite 1988-1991. Four years of being able to get in a car, drive less than 90 minutes, and be looking at La Tache, then dine in a local restaurant on sumptious food with a bottle of Echezeaux for less than 20 quid.
Ain't that the life?
Agree with you about Parker. But that's what comes of geopolitical decline. The French now make wine to the American taste, not ours.
I don't really agree about the £50. Good claret and burgundy from old vintages (or newer ones, for that matter) is bound to cost a lot more and is something fabulous. Actually it's wines under £30 that are more often disappointing, in my experience.
That said, prices for fine wine certainly are driven up by snobbery and general arseholery. But it doesn't make me not want to drink it. (It makes me want to have more money.)
Nah. Wrong
In recent years I've been "lucky" enough to samples wines that fetch £5000 a bottle, all the way down to £5. The difference between £5000 and £50 is minimal, if non existent. In fact it is non existent.
The science of wine tasting is actually quite shocking. Most so called wine expertise is, in fact, total rubbish, verging on charlatanism. Supposed experts can barely tell the difference between Grand Cru and plonk, without the hint of label, price, etc
Tyson: "He could have done just as well being a stockbroker attached to Lloyds in Abingdon. "
I had to smile at your boyish innocence. Have you ever tried to process a transaction involving foreign shares through the branch of a UK bank? After 1982 it was at last possible to buy shares in a foreign currency without going through hoops. The easiest method, especially if you also wanted to do so in partnership with non-UK investors was to set up an offshore fund, as Cameron's father did. The tax effect for him was the same as if he had set it up here.
Presumably those criticising Blairmore Holdings never buy anything from duty free when travelling but always wait until they are back in the UK to buy it so that they can pay the most tax possible.
That is possibly the most pathetic bit of whataboutery that I have seen on PB, and believe me that his saying something
"He came back with a face like a National Front Manifesto."
I'm guessing that is not good. Very funny piece though.
the interviewer sounds like a right boring prig.
I actually felt sorry for Farage.
"The wine, a fruity Bordeaux, is excellent too. I should visit the 1980s more often."
What's the approved millennial wine choice? A Californian imitation of Bordeaux perhaps?
Given the price of Bordeaux, I think Californian imitations (particularly Ridge Monte Bello) are outstanding value is you really want a top class wine. (At c. 100 quid a bottle, they are still for special occasions only. But given that second growth Bordeaux can cost 150 quid these days, I think California is the value trade.)
I still think that's bold pricing and reflects what the US market will pay rather than intrinsic quality (and I feel the wines are made with an eye to Parker ratings rather than a perhaps more objective quality). Italy remains value.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
But in general, Parker's high ratings for nasty fruit- and alcohol-heavy reds has distorted the pricing of those wines in the US market. Fortunately, I am a Burgundy man, rather than Cote du Rhone, so my preferences aren't as overpriced as the latter.
Agreed 100%. (Except that Red Burgundy is even more ridiculously overpriced than Red Bordeaux.)
Alas, tis true. I ruefully remember living (in sequence) in Geneva, Fontainebleau and Maison Laffite 1988-1991. Four years of being able to get in a car, drive less than 90 minutes, and be looking at La Tache, then dine in a local restaurant on sumptious food with a bottle of Echezeaux for less than 20 quid.
I was invited to a Berry Brothers lunch where we had eight bottle of wines from years ending in '8. One of them was a Domaine de Romenee Conti. It was staggeringly good, and I asked how much it would cost to buy. I was literally laughed at for my ignorance. When I got back home (sozzled, at 5:30pm), I googled "domain da romany conti" (or some other misspelling), and was staggered to discover that they'd given me a couple of glasses of a bottle that cost around 3,500.
(The coolest part about the lunch was the 1908 Madeira. Not because it was amazing - it was fine, but it was just Madeira - but because we were drinking something that was bottled more than a century before, in a truly different era.)
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
While that's true of overly heavy, excessively alcoholic wines such as Opus One (yuck), I don't think that's true of Ridge Monte Bello at all.
But in general, Parker's high ratings for nasty fruit- and alcohol-heavy reds has distorted the pricing of those wines in the US market. Fortunately, I am a Burgundy man, rather than Cote du Rhone, so my preferences aren't as overpriced as the latter.
Agreed 100%. (Except that Red Burgundy is even more ridiculously overpriced than Red Bordeaux.)
Alas, tis true. I ruefully remember living (in sequence) in Geneva, Fontainebleau and Maison Laffite 1988-1991. Four years of being able to get in a car, drive less than 90 minutes, and be looking at La Tache, then dine in a local restaurant on sumptious food with a bottle of Echezeaux for less than 20 quid.
Ain't that the life?
Agree with you about Parker. But that's what comes of geopolitical decline. The French now make wine to the American taste, not ours.
It's even worse than that - the French are giving up tradition entirely, selling wine to the Americans by the varietal, not the appellation. Worst still, they are creating varietal wines from the "wrong" regions. ;(
Of course, some of these non-traditional wines are in fact very good.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Love it.
And quite believable too.
It would be very interesting to repeat that test, but with the experts blindfolded ...
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
I was invited to a Berry Brothers lunch where we had eight bottle of wines from years ending in '8. One of them was a Domaine de Romenee Conti. It was staggeringly good, and I asked how much it would cost to buy. I was literally laughed at for my ignorance. When I got back home (sozzled, at 5:30pm), I googled "domain da romany conti" (or some other misspelling), and was staggered to discover that they'd given me a couple of glasses of a bottle that cost around 3,500.
(The coolest part about the lunch was the 1908 Madeira. Not because it was amazing - it was fine, but it was just Madeira - but because we were drinking something that was bottled more than a century before, in a truly different era.)
I believe the Domaine de Romanee Conti also has, in my lifetime, been fully subscribed, and so you cannot buy it directly from the producers or retailers, but only in the secondary market.
Never been so lucky as to taste it. I have imbibed other Romanees a fair bit over the years and built up and nice vertical in the cellar at one point. All drunk now.
A friend of mine is married to a lady of the Rothschild family. I went round their house a couple of years ago and they gave me a nice glass of wine while we chatted. As neither of them is particularly a drinker, they looked at the bottle and shrugged and said Oh we opened it for Dad's birthday, but never really touched it, please finish the bottle off, so I did (there was 3/4 left).
I didn't know what I was drinking but it was delicate and rich, if a bit weary.
When I got home I googled. Turned out it was this.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
What is the difference between them actually tasting different and our thinking they taste different?
A friend of mine is married to a lady of the Rothschild family. I went round their house a couple of years ago and they gave me a nice glass of wine while we chatted. As neither of them is particularly a drinker, they looked at the bottle and shrugged and said Oh we opened it for Dad's birthday, but never really touched it, please finish the bottle off, so I did (there was 3/4 left).
I didn't know what I was drinking but it was delicate and rich, if a bit weary.
When I got home I googled. Turned out it was this.
I was invited to a Berry Brothers lunch where we had eight bottle of wines from years ending in '8. One of them was a Domaine de Romenee Conti. It was staggeringly good, and I asked how much it would cost to buy. I was literally laughed at for my ignorance. When I got back home (sozzled, at 5:30pm), I googled "domain da romany conti" (or some other misspelling), and was staggered to discover that they'd given me a couple of glasses of a bottle that cost around 3,500.
(The coolest part about the lunch was the 1908 Madeira. Not because it was amazing - it was fine, but it was just Madeira - but because we were drinking something that was bottled more than a century before, in a truly different era.)
I believe the Domaine de Romanee Conti also has, in my lifetime, been fully subscribed, and so you cannot buy it directly from the producers or retailers, but only in the secondary market.
Never been so lucky as to taste it. I have imbibed other Romanees a fair bit over the years and built up and nice vertical in the cellar at one point. All drunk now.
I am moderately well off. I occasionally (twice a year?) drink 100 pound bottles of Ridge. I cannot see any reasonable circumstances (except possibly the IPO of Crowdscores, or its sale to Google or Facebook) where I'd spend that kind of money on a bottle of wine.
A friend of mine is married to a lady of the Rothschild family. I went round their house a couple of years ago and they gave me a nice glass of wine while we chatted. As neither of them is particularly a drinker, they looked at the bottle and shrugged and said Oh we opened it for Dad's birthday, but never really touched it, please finish the bottle off, so I did (there was 3/4 left).
I didn't know what I was drinking but it was delicate and rich, if a bit weary.
When I got home I googled. Turned out it was this.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
They actually taste different. However, colour and texture and other factors all affect our perception of taste. For example, our brain's visual interpretations can override the chemical taste/scent signals from the tongue and nose. So it's not at all surprising that the experts were fooled by the dyed white wine.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Wine experts need to stop taking part in studies (although may be tricked into them I guess), as they seem to come across looking like idiots whenever they do.
Personally, I don't drink, probably why I'm such a boring sod, but it just doesn't seem possible for something really expensive to be worth it. I can imagine that a £100 steak may be better than a £20 steak - but is it five times better? Possibly, just about, at such small multipliers, but when food or drink is 100x more than a much more reasonable version of the same? It certainly cannot be 100x better, and no guarantee it will be any better in some instances. Doesn't seem worth it, even if one has money to burn.
If I ever through hard work or luck, or both, become rich, I'd like to think I could waste my money on other things for ostentatious displays.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
What is the difference between them actually tasting different and our thinking they taste different?
Chemical interactions which our taste buds sense? They could be the same, but the brain is interpreting them as different based on visual stimuli?
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Wine experts need to stop taking part in studies (although may be tricked into them I guess), as they seem to come across looking like idiots whenever they do.
Personally, I don't drink, probably why I'm such a boring sod, but it just doesn't seem possible for something really expensive to be worth it. I can imagine that a £100 steak may be better than a £20 steak - but is it five times better? Possibly, just about, at such small multipliers, but when food or drink is 100x more than a much more reasonable version of the same? It certainly cannot be 100x better, and no guarantee it will be any better in some instances.
If I ever through hard work or luck, or both, become rich, I'd like to think I could waste my money on other things for ostentatious displays.
I think that's true of anything you can buy. There are diminishing returns as you pay more. But, dammit, you've got to spend your money on something.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Wine experts need to stop taking part in studies (although may be tricked into them I guess), as they seem to come across looking like idiots whenever they do.
Personally, I don't drink, probably why I'm such a boring sod, but it just doesn't seem possible for something really expensive to be worth it. I can imagine that a £100 steak may be better than a £20 steak - but is it five times better? Possibly, just about, at such small multipliers, but when food or drink is 100x more than a much more reasonable version of the same? It certainly cannot be 100x better, and no guarantee it will be any better in some instances.
If I ever through hard work or luck, or both, become rich, I'd like to think I could waste my money on other things for ostentatious displays.
I think that's true of anything you can buy. There are diminishing returns as you pay more. But, dammit, you've got to spend your money on something.
Well sure, but something you literally piss away? Each to their own. Wealth wasted on the rich, as they say.
But I suppose it's really about having something rare, although again there seem better rare things to purchase with one's offshore money.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
What is the difference between them actually tasting different and our thinking they taste different?
Chemical interactions which our taste buds sense? They could be the same, but the brain is interpreting them as different based on visual stimuli?
Yes, they could be the exact same substance.
What I was getting at was that taste, like the other senses, is something cooked up by the brain. If the brain thinks two things taste different then surely they do. They may be the same thing but they taste different. Ie, the sense of taste is not a reliable chemical-analysis device.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Wine experts need to stop taking part in studies (although may be tricked into them I guess), as they seem to come across looking like idiots whenever they do.
Personally, I don't drink, probably why I'm such a boring sod, but it just doesn't seem possible for something really expensive to be worth it. I can imagine that a £100 steak may be better than a £20 steak - but is it five times better? Possibly, just about, at such small multipliers, but when food or drink is 100x more than a much more reasonable version of the same? It certainly cannot be 100x better, and no guarantee it will be any better in some instances.
If I ever through hard work or luck, or both, become rich, I'd like to think I could waste my money on other things for ostentatious displays.
I think that's true of anything you can buy. There are diminishing returns as you pay more. But, dammit, you've got to spend your money on something.
Well sure, but something you literally piss away? Each to their own. Wealth wasted on the rich, as they say.
But I suppose it's really about having something rare, although again there seem better rare things to purchase with one's offshore money.
Reminds me of the bad joke of the Irish drunk pouring his Guinness directly into the urinal in order to 'cut out the middle man' ...
Oops! It's probably non-PC to make Irish jokes these days.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
A relatively interesting party trick is to challenge people, especially those who say they know about wine, to tell, at the same temperature, red from white wine. Or whisky from brandy.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
They actually taste different. However, colour and texture and other factors all affect our perception of taste. For example, our brain's visual interpretations can override the chemical taste/scent signals from the tongue and nose. So it's not at all surprising that the experts were fooled by the dyed white wine.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
My father in law set a blind tasting at a family party once. There were two bottles of Pinot Noir, one NZ and one Burgundy, and the entrants simply had to identify which was which.
My rather eccentric uncle was the only one (including me) to spot that both wines were from Burgundy. My father in law had (genuinely accidentally!) wrapped two identical bottles.
Everyone else could taste that the one was New world and the other old world.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
They actually taste different. However, colour and texture and other factors all affect our perception of taste. For example, our brain's visual interpretations can override the chemical taste/scent signals from the tongue and nose. So it's not at all surprising that the experts were fooled by the dyed white wine.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
I suspect they could tell the difference blindfolded, agreed. I am sure I could (but who knows...?)
However the experiment does REALLY underline the nonsense that permeates the subject of wine and wine-tasting. If just one mendacious visual clue means an expert cannot discern red from white wine, then the whole edifice of wine connoisseurship collapses.
And on that note, I am opening a bottle of St Henri Shiraz. Totally worth £30
Agreed on the ridiculousness of the pomposity that goes into wine snobbery. Ultimately, you like the wine or you don't, it goes with your food or it doesn't. If you can enjoy wine for $15 a bottle (and there are plenty of Southern Hemisphere whites that fall into that category for me), then there's nothing wrong with that - rather there's something sad about not being able to.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
They actually taste different. However, colour and texture and other factors all affect our perception of taste. For example, our brain's visual interpretations can override the chemical taste/scent signals from the tongue and nose. So it's not at all surprising that the experts were fooled by the dyed white wine.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
I suspect they could tell the difference blindfolded, agreed. I am sure I could (but who knows...?)
However the experiment does REALLY underline the nonsense that permeates the subject of wine and wine-tasting. If just one mendacious visual clue means an expert cannot discern red from white wine, then the whole edifice of wine connoisseurship collapses.
And on that note, I am opening a bottle of St Henri Shiraz. Totally worth £30
PS But I am also happy to acknowledge that my enjoyment of a wine is not just about the wine itself. I've enjoyed many a bottle of retsina on Greek beaches. I've never enjoyed even one anywhere else in the world.
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
They actually taste different. However, colour and texture and other factors all affect our perception of taste. For example, our brain's visual interpretations can override the chemical taste/scent signals from the tongue and nose. So it's not at all surprising that the experts were fooled by the dyed white wine.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
I suspect they could tell the difference blindfolded, agreed. I am sure I could (but who knows...?)
However the experiment does REALLY underline the nonsense that permeates the subject of wine and wine-tasting. If just one mendacious visual clue means an expert cannot discern red from white wine, then the whole edifice of wine connoisseurship collapses.
And on that note, I am opening a bottle of St Henri Shiraz. Totally worth £30
"Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
Wine EXPERTS, when given misleading clues, were unable to tell the difference between red and white wine.
Do they taste different only because we think they do, or do they actually taste different? One for the PB brain trust.
They actually taste different. However, colour and texture and other factors all affect our perception of taste. For example, our brain's visual interpretations can override the chemical taste/scent signals from the tongue and nose. So it's not at all surprising that the experts were fooled by the dyed white wine.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
My father in law set a blind tasting at a family party once. There were two bottles of Pinot Noir, one NZ and one Burgundy, and the entrants simply had to identify which was which.
My rather eccentric uncle was the only one (including me) to spot that both wines were from Burgundy. My father in law had (genuinely accidentally!) wrapped two identical bottles.
Everyone else could taste that the one was New world and the other old world.
Comments
Yougov April 4th 2015.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mms0le3g9r/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-040415-Final.pdf
Cameron +1
Miliband -26
The Yougov poll of April 8th 2015 did not have that question, only the April 4th one.
As there are tax evaders, there are uninterested, lazy, half job types who just pay far more than they should. Osborne recently called people who do not make the most of tax efficiencies stupid. I rather think of them as people who really are not that obsessed by making money.
Edit: this could be the most boring post I've ever written and the competition is fierce.
http://atrueindependentscotland.com/the-buck-stops-here/
Not everyone can be bothered investing time and energy chasing tax efficiencies. I am happy to pay the tax that I do.
I've laid most of the near 7 stuff, and I don't propose to take you on in any significant size, but I'd sort of be interested to hear thoughts on this. (My contention is that the next PM almost has to be a Tory if Cameron delivers on his 'no third term' thing)
I think I may miss JC when he finally goes - he's a great source of free money in my view.
9th June 2015 the Europe Minister told the House:
Labour 2609
Conservative 2593
Lib Dem 1751
Green 1488
UKIP 1380
TUSC 302
All others 496
I was trying to be nice to Cameron. His dad is his dad. I was simply saying that working as a stockbroker essentially to help people pay less tax, is hardly going to win his father any humanitarian awards.
No he didn't. He was a stockbroker devoting his obvious intelligence to help individuals and institutions make profitable investments. Anyone would be most unwise to take tax advice from him.
(Intriguingly enough, Betgenius Ltd was conceived at The Shooting Star in 2000, and was bought off the shelf as Crowncraven Ltd from City & Dominion Registars of Finchley Road. Probably not the same place as your 250k company place, but still...)
Wine drinker - Remain
Lager drinker - Leave
Real Ale drinker - Swing voter
Was the second bit of your post some kind of code?
Cue calls of gaylord ponceyboots.
Incidentally, anybody who has ever flown has taken advantage of this given aircraft finance/ownership structuring. I can give more detail if required but one suspects that facts are generally unwelcome in this discussion.
Edit; typos, I love them.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/08/tony-julie-wadsworth-bbc-radio-presenters-child-sex-offences
I had to smile at your boyish innocence. Have you ever tried to process a transaction involving foreign shares through the branch of a UK bank?
After 1982 it was at last possible to buy shares in a foreign currency without going through hoops. The easiest method, especially if you also wanted to do so in partnership with non-UK investors was to set up an offshore fund, as Cameron's father did. The tax effect for him was the same as if he had set it up here.
Upper end Bordeaux is an investment wine. And don't the producers know it.
Rhone-equivalents are new-New World.
Betgenius - a firm I started in 2000 - was conceived in the Shooting Star because I lived around the corner from there at the time. (As did the co-founder.) It happened to be bought off the shelf, because that's the easiest way to form a company. And it was bought by whichever firm was cheapest when I did the research.
Those coincidences can be twisted into saying that I - and Betgenius Ltd - are part of some giant conspiracy.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/aqWJlHS4_rJSJ7rLgTK49iO4gAg/appointments?page=1
https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/congress-investigating-british-companies-but-not-our-own-government-why/
But of course its just all a whacky massive conspiracy theory! Pull the other one. Note the number of company directorships, dissolved companies (if you look past page 1!) and the numbers of days where just a director for a single day. The information is freely available if you know where to look.
Odd how things change - fine wines, stamps - avoid. Comics.. maybe they're the thing!
(Tbf I think (in common with most of the population) my benefits forms (mostly just child tax credit) would be of very slightly more interest.)
I think I'm slightly disappointed in the PM for apparently not having dodged millions in tax. I took it for granted he was a professional.
It is only for that small percentage of wines that benefit from aging that a cork is a necessity (to allow breathing) and hence a better option.
That said, prices for fine wine certainly are driven up by snobbery and general arseholery. But it doesn't make me not want to drink it. (It makes me want to have more money.)
Agree with you about Parker. But that's what comes of geopolitical decline. The French now make wine to the American taste, not ours.
It's true, though, that I knew what it was. My own efforts at blind tasting, over the years, have been comically inept.
(The coolest part about the lunch was the 1908 Madeira. Not because it was amazing - it was fine, but it was just Madeira - but because we were drinking something that was bottled more than a century before, in a truly different era.)
And quite believable too.
Of course, some of these non-traditional wines are in fact very good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fSXp6N-vs
Never been so lucky as to taste it. I have imbibed other Romanees a fair bit over the years and built up and nice vertical in the cellar at one point. All drunk now.
That is why I'd like to see the results of the same test with the experts blindfolded. That would tell you whether the experts cannot tell the difference in taste between a white and a red, or whether the visual stimulus overrules the taste stimulus.
Personally, I don't drink, probably why I'm such a boring sod, but it just doesn't seem possible for something really expensive to be worth it. I can imagine that a £100 steak may be better than a £20 steak - but is it five times better? Possibly, just about, at such small multipliers, but when food or drink is 100x more than a much more reasonable version of the same? It certainly cannot be 100x better, and no guarantee it will be any better in some instances. Doesn't seem worth it, even if one has money to burn.
If I ever through hard work or luck, or both, become rich, I'd like to think I could waste my money on other things for ostentatious displays.
But I suppose it's really about having something rare, although again there seem better rare things to purchase with one's offshore money.
What I was getting at was that taste, like the other senses, is something cooked up by the brain. If the brain thinks two things taste different then surely they do. They may be the same thing but they taste different. Ie, the sense of taste is not a reliable chemical-analysis device.
Oops! It's probably non-PC to make Irish jokes these days.
Anyway I'm just back from having a couple of Yorkshire Blondes. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm talking beer.
My rather eccentric uncle was the only one (including me) to spot that both wines were from Burgundy. My father in law had (genuinely accidentally!) wrapped two identical bottles.
Everyone else could taste that the one was New world and the other old world.
edit: rewind to 36 mins in
http://www.spacex.com/webcast
https://twitter.com/HuffingtonPost/status/718542828067037184/video/1
The more expensive a wine, generally, the better it is.