Nobody, as far as I know, buys luxury goods which are absolutely indistinguishable from cheaper versions. People pay more for wine in bottles, even though the

Nobody, as far as I know, buys luxury goods which are absolutely indistinguishable from cheaper versions. People pay more for wine in bottles, even though the same wine in a box is cheaper. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22No+cork+sniffer+would+be+caught+dead+with+a+box+of+wine%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22No+cork+sniffer+would+be+c... . A $300 bottle of wine tastes somewhat better than a $10 bottle. It also sells for $300, despite the fact that the $10 bottle of wine can be made indistinguishable from the $300 bottle of wine by merely adding a few dollars' worth of chemicals. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-09-11-wine-chemistry_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-09-11-wine-chemist... chemists are trying to isolate chemicals that produce desirable fragrances and flavors. ... many wineries are shunning such technology and embracing distinctly Luddite, back-to-the Earth growing techniques such as using things like "Preparation 500," the springtime vineyard spray made from the manure-stuffed cow horns, buried over fall and winter, then ground up and mixed with water. "We're trying to make better wine through alchemy," joked Jim Fullmer, director of the Philomath, Ore.-based Demeter Association, a non-profit group that certifies vineyards as "biodynamic" — a sort of hyper-organic designation that means the vintner relies on such things as lunar cycles and planetary alignment rather than chemistry. "Biodynamics is probably the exact opposite," Fullmer said. "Winemaking is an art." . People do not pay $300 a bottle for wine that tastes better. People pay $300 a bottle for wine that makes them feel romantic -- wine based on such things as manure-stuffed cow horns, lunar cycles and planetary alignment.