It's not true. Yes, there are snobs, and there is a lot of subjectivity involved, an several studies exposed that.
On the other hand, some wines have a certain richness of flavor not present in other wines. Certain aspects of it can be better appreciate by people who developed a certain taste of wines and can differentiate better. They're the target group of the more expensive wines. You pay for a unique experience, for something that you like but you can' really get anywhere else.
True, the prices of certain wines reach ridiculous levels, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't taste better, especially for someone who tasted a lot of wines and can appreciate them. All this in spite of the fact that "objectively better taste" is in fact an oxymoron, since all discussions of taste (as well as beauty etc.) are by nature subjective and all notions of objectivity are assumed because of a certain consensus (by a majority, an authority/experts etc.).
With wine and spirits, you're often paying for rarity, rather than outright quality.
I'm not a huge wine snob (most wines I buy are in the $10-$20 range), but I have tasted some rather expensive wines. In a lot of cases, you're not really paying for "richness of flavor" (a lot of cheaper wines have plenty of richness and balance), you're paying for name and for rarity, especially when it comes to older wines.
I'm actually more into whisky, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that the best whisky I have ever tasted in my life costs around $400. Now, that is still somewhat expensive compared to the <$100 whiskies I usually enjoy, but it's not outrageously expensive, especially considering how long a bottle of whisky lasts, when compared to a bottle of wine, once it's opened.
And it was immeasurably better than any multi-thousand dollar whisky I've had the chance to taste. With Macallans, Dalmores, Pappy van Winkle and other high-priced spirits, you are absolutely paying for a name, not necessarily for the quality.
It was a Bunnahabhain XXV, the greatest sherry cask dram I have ever had the pleasure of tasting. I am very close to rationalizing buying a bottle, but I know I can buy four $100 bottles of other whiskies that are 95% as good, and will give me a wider range of experiences, for that same price.
I'm not a huge wine drinker and what I buy is usually on the relatively inexpensive side--though not lowest end. Now and then I have splurged for a premium wine tasting (maybe $50-100 bottles at retail). I do appreciate the difference--slightly. I'd also rather spend that money on a nice bottle of whiskey and stick with ~$10-15/bottle wine:-)
For the most part, I agree with your post. Interestingly, most of my favorite whiskeys are around $400ish too. That said, my absolute favorite (35yr Hibiki) I can absolutely tell the difference with and it's much more expensive than that.
You pay for a unique experience, for something that you like but you can' really get anywhere else.
What you're saying is certainly true for a $200-500 bottle of wine and possibly even a $2000-5000 bottle of wine, but once you get up to $20k you're buying a rare collectors item as an investment vehicle and not a drink.
