What's your top price point?

[britcook]

A couple of points in other threads got me thinking about what is the top price I'd pay for a bottle of wine at normal retail? I'm a great fan of wine, with a reasonable knowledge, and I've found many wines under $30 (£20)/bottle which give me great pleasure. So much pleasure in fact that I'm reluctant to spend much more knowing that if I spent twice as much on something "better" my pleasure rise would be minimal. It may well be that my palate is just not good enough to appreciate the subtle differences (and I can live with that), but I think I must have a mean streak that says the price/value equation breaks down at a certain point - the law of diminishing returns. Because of that I don't think I've ever spent (or would spend) more than today's equivalent of $50 retail on a bottle of wine for normal drinking (champagne for very special occasions excepted).

Now I know some people have fatter wallets than me, so they drink expensive stuff "because they can afford to", but they don't necessarily do it for the qualities of the wine. So the simple question is under normal circumstances what is the top price you'd pay for a bottle of wine, and if it's over (say) $100 what makes it so special, or what additional pleasure does it give you over a $50 bottle?

Better leave restaurant prices out of this because they're just plain silly.

[mogsob]

For me, it really depends on the wine. I do a lot of shopping at La Vigneronne these days for French country wines (Languedoc, Bandol, Cahors etc.). Twenty pounds is just about my limit there, and only if I really want to try the wine. Generally, I'm more of a 10-15 pound buyer there. My price point is even less at RSJ for their fab Loire offerings.

But I do indulge, then and again, in some very fine Rhone wines (CdP and Cornas mostly), Bordeaux (Gruaud Larose, Leoville Barton, Cos d'Estournel, Lynch Bages), and Burgundy (mostly Chambolle these days). My price point goes to about 40 pounds for these bottles, although I generally spend between 20 and 30 pounds per bottle. Ditto for Amarone and Barolo.

I drink very little New Worlds wine in London, but when I'm in NY, I generally spend between 20 and 40 dollars for New World meritage (Affinity, Tapestry come to mind).

Would I spend more? Probably not, unless it was a very special bottle, e.g., 1990 Suduiraut.

[oraklet]

i don't know how others feel, but to me it seems that wines naturally fall in four groups:

passable: this is just wine as fermented grape juice. say, a southern french wine. 4-7$

nice: some pleasure besides the thing being fermented etc. could be a plain brouilly. 7-20$

good: makes you glad you spent the money on it. leoville-barton? i don't often have this kind of wine...20-120$

wonderful: the doors of perception open up. have tried it, say, five times. never paid for it myself! cheval blanc, ... 120-...$

"the doors of perception open up". really do, you know.

[AdamLawrence]

I was trying to work this out the other day. I have about 100 bottles of wine in my so-called 'cellar' - actually the cupboard under the stairs, but I'm trying to convince the lady wife to let me build a spiral cellar as part of our kitchen extension - and they seem to split into three categories. You've got everyday cheapies, mostly southern France and up to about GBP 8/bottle. That's about 50 per cent of what's in there. You've got better wines, mostly Rhones, Alsace and some NZ stuff, bought for between ten and twenty pounds/bottle. That's probably 40 per cent of what I've got. And there's a case or so of special wines - Cote-Rotie and Burgundy. For none of those did I pay more than thirty quid a bottle - some were bought in bin end sales and so were significantly cheaper.

The most expensive wine I've ever bought retail was £42. That was burgundy.

Adam

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well let me ask you this question. If the cost of visiting museums varied based on the quality of the art on display, would you pay more to see the great artists then you would pay for lesser ones? I ask it that way because you have described wine as a consumable (nothing wrong with that mind you) but if you were to describe it purely as a matter of aesthetics, and you were interested in experiencing that aesthetic, you might take a different view. And that gets you to whether a $500 bottle of d'Yqueem is worth the money? And the answer is, it depends on how much you want to have the experience? There is no law of diminishing returns on aesthetic experiences. Each one is priceless because they aren't about money, they are about quality.

As for people drinking better wines then you because they can afford to, rather then because they know about wine, I can attest that from my own experience that it is generally not true. Sure of course you have guys who are flashing their wads for their dates with big hair but, for the most part that is a fallacy and fine wine is consumed by people who have an appreciation of it. There is no reason for someone who knows nothing about wine to order an expensive bottle to a table full of others who know nothing. He isn't impressing anyone.

Edited December 4, 2002 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Dave the Cook]

There is no reason for someone who knows nothing about wine to order an expensive bottle to a table full of others who know nothing. He isn't impressing anyone.

Except himself. And he thinks he's impressing others, which is why he does it. I have been at tables like this more than once.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I did say generally you know. I didn't say it never happens.

[GordonCooks]

Wine Stores ? Depends on the wine - I usually leave the wine store with a case (20%) off. the most expensive bottle may be a $ 50.00 Cab and the cheapest may be a Trimbach Pinot Gris $ 9.00.

I have friends in the business that are restaurant owners or wine sales people that will hip me to a deal or small allocations. Recently? I spent $125.00 on a 1970 Beychevelle and thought it was a value. Last night I paid $64.00 for 99 CSJ Cinq Cepages and winced.

I'm happy to ride the coattails of some older (well-heeled) friends and always take advantage of certain wine events to have the opportunity to drink wines I would not otherwise purchase. I can think

Restaurants ? I rarely spend over $ 100.00 a bottle unless it’s a special occasion or a special wine.

[oraklet]

i've seen one guy start off in wine to impress; then finding that he had to be able to throw in the right names and phrases, and suddenly being interested for real. by now he's a connaisseur AND enjoys his expensive wines.

[Dave the Cook]

I did say generally you know. I didn't say it never happens.

Sorry, I wasn't contradicting you. But I'm pretty sure it happens more often than you think. Not everyone has your experience, and not everyone keeps the sort of company you seem to.

What I'm talking about are business dinners, where perhaps the European Managing Director feels a need to establish cultural authority over his Yankee underlings, so he picks a wine without consulting the table about what's been ordered, and he chooses without regard to real quality, and even though he knows less about wine, especially North American wine, than I do, which is saying something. (Later, you find out that this guy's favorite U.S. restaurant is Red Lobster.)

Then there's the person who is sure that all that is required to get a good wine is to pay a lot of money for it. My sister-in-law routinely procures a bottle of Opus One for any celebratory occasion. It is her pleasure to do so, and I am not going to cheapen her joy by suggesting that, for the same money, she could probably get two bottles of something better and more appropriate to what is being served (which I learned at innumerable business dinners like the one described above).

By the way, Steve, I don't think anyone who has read eGullet for very long would place you in either of these categories.

Edited December 4, 2002 by Dave the Cook (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Thanks Dave. I really don't see it happen very often. And when it does, it revolves around unimformed choices like your sister and the Opus one. Most of the "really good wine" is bought by, and drunk by, people who really care about it. Because while you can be at a place like Daniel and a businessman will swoop in on a ridiculously priced bottle of old Petrus, only people with a high level of expertise are going to order the 1996 Meo-Camuzet Vosne-Romanee Brulees they have on their list. And in the contexct of this thread, if Britcook was buying wines at a higher price point, he wouldn't be buying Opus.

[GordonCooks]

Thanks Dave. I really don't see it happen very often. And when it does, it revolves around unimformed choices like your sister and the Opus one. Most of the "really good wine" is bought by, and drunk by, people who really care about it. Because while you can be at a place like Daniel and a businessman will swoop in on a ridiculously priced bottle of old Petrus, only people with a high level of expertise are going to order the 1996 Meo-Camuzet Vosne-Romanee Brulees they have on their list. And in the contexct of this thread, if Britcook was buying wines at a higher price point, he wouldn't be buying Opus.

Any other suggestions for Daniel ? I've yet to hear from Jean Luc after 2 inquiries. A friend was there 2 months ago and I wanted to chat with him in regards to the list before we go on Saturday.

Edited December 4, 2002 by GordonCooks (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

The list at Daniel is pretty pricey. There were two wines that we thought were worth it, the Meo and a second I can't remember now. Not that the Meo wasn't pricy at $290. But it's a wine that sells for $200-$250 at auction and in relation to other wines there that were priced at twice the auction price or more, it was a bargain if you are from the price is relative school. And I don't know if you want to spend that kind of money but if you do, the wine is a mind boggler. About the best balance of power and purity I've had in a Burgundy in a long while. But it needs air and if you are going to punt, I'd call that afternoon and get them to decant it. If I remember correctly, the Italian section was priced better then the other regions of the world were priced.

[GordonCooks]

The list at Daniel is pretty pricey. There were two wines that we thought were worth it, the Meo and a second I can't remember now. Not that the Meo wasn't pricy at $290. But it's a wine that sells for $200-$250 at auction and in relation to other wines there that were priced at twice the auction price or more, it was a bargain if you are from the price is relative school. And I don't know if you want to spend that kind of money but if you do, the wine is a mind boggler. About the best balance of power and purity I've had in a Burgundy in a long while. But it needs air and if you are going to punt, I'd call that afternoon and get them to decant it. If I remember correctly, the Italian section was priced better then the other regions of the world were priced.

Thanks - It does sound like a good value. I don't get to NY as often as I like and it "is" Restaurant Daniel.

[britcook]

Well let me ask you this question. If the cost of visiting museums varied based on the quality of the art on display, would you pay more to see the great artists then you would pay for lesser ones? I ask it that way because you have described wine as a consumable (nothing wrong with that mind you) but if you were to describe it purely as a matter of aesthetics, and you were interested in experiencing that aesthetic, you might take a different view. And that gets you to whether a $500 bottle of d'Yqueem is worth the money? And the answer is, it depends on how much you want to have the experience? There is no law of diminishing returns on aesthetic experiences. Each one is priceless because they aren't about money, they are about quality.

[hollywood]

If the cost of visiting museums varied based on the quality of the art on display, would you pay more to see the great artists then you would pay for lesser ones?

The art analogy is an intriguing one. In a sense for non New Yorkers and non Parisians, the cost does vary based on quality. We've got to pony up for transportation to get to that great art.

There's a difference in what's bearable going retail and at a restaurant, particularly a good restaurant. I find it hard to justify more than $50 retail, but at a restaurant on a special occasion, $100 or so seems acceptable. Even accepting bargain hunting, something seems awry in eating 3 star cuisine and drinking plonk. Strangely though, I don't mind the reverse: eating ordinary food with better (maybe not the best) wine. In fact, I think it provides a perverse pleasure. Of course the ultimate is a marriage of the best of both food and vino. It's symbiotic.

[Steve Plotnicki]

The foundation point I was trying to make (which appears from your response I at least made in part,) is that at the lower end wine is priced like consumer goods and at the high end it is priced like art. Starting at the low end, somewhere as the price point keeps going up it switches tracks. Exactly where that is is hard to put your finger on and there are a number of factors both personal and qualitative that go into the exact spot it happens. But then my ultimate point is that how much drinking 1967 d'Yqueem (which should sell for around $500) is worth is incalculable by your methodology because it isn't priced like a consumer good. And the reason it isn't priced like a consumer good is that funny money is chasing the wine. By that I mean, the people who want to drink it don't care about the money, they only care about the experience.

So the concept of worth gets distorted. And the flip side of your question, is one where you are asked, if you had unlimited funds at your disposal (or enough to make a bottle of $500 sauternes easily affordable,) would you still drink the Guirard with the same frequency? And depending on who else was asked that question, the answer would vary widely depending on which peer group was asked. But if one assumes that the market is efficient enough to take all the different peer groups into consideration, the market price based on supply and demand should be a good bellweather for what the wine is actually worth. I also think it's a mistake to look at big spenders as proof of anything including market inflation. There are people in every economic class who are ignorant about wine and who end up with that Guirard becaue the sommelier recommends it at the price point they are interested in.

Of course none of this is to say that the most expensive bottle will be the most enjoyable. In fact I drink lots of Chateauneuf-du-Pape and I more often then not prefer the regular cuvees to the luxury bottlings. But while that might be the case when I'm talking about wines from Roger Sabon, it isn't the case when I'm talking about Bonneau or Rayas. And I would say that spending $500 to be able to drink 1989 Rayas as my house wine is money well spent. Providing the money didn't matter to me. Then the wine certainly would.

[hollywood]

And the flip side of your question, is one where you are asked, if you had unlimited funds at your disposal (or enough to make a bottle of $500 sauternes easily affordable,) would you still drink the Guirard with the same frequency?

It's hypothetical, but if money were not an issue, I think I'd drink better wine more often. And hopefully acquire more insight so as to select what's good regardless of price or sommelier recs. So, should I go buy a lotto ticket or spend the dollar on a slightly better wine?

Edited December 4, 2002 by hollywood (log)

[britcook]

And the reason it isn't priced like a consumer good is that funny money is chasing the wine.

I do believe we might have some agreement here The subtitle "palate or wallet" gives it, at what point does the price become more important than the taste? I've stated my price point because to me wine is just a consumer product, if I want art I go to a gallery. So would you occasionally spend $500 of your own money (in your current circumstances) on a bottle of wine? Or less? Or more?

[Robert Nesta Marley]

As for people drinking better wines then you because they can afford to, rather then because they know about wine, I can attest that from my own experience that it is generally not true.

Sure of course you have guys who are flashing their wads for their dates with big hair but, for the most part that is a fallacy and fine wine is consumed by people who have an appreciation of it.

one could also conclude that once people know about wine, they generally *will* drink better, and although the price of a bottle may be somewhat relative to the paycheck they get every week, the percentage of that check that is spent on wine will increase the more frequently someone tastes great wine. otherwise, a wine lover knows when it's time to drink beer.

fine wine is consumed by people who appreciate it. we just find a way to drink it. it may not be as often as others, but an educated palate is an educated palate and that's it.

[hollywood]

So would you occasionally spend $500 of your own money (in your current circumstances) on a bottle of wine? Or less? Or more?

This is probably irrational but No, I wouldn't spend $500 on a bottle. My rationale would be I'd rather spend it on a good meal or two and wine rather than just a bottle.

[baruch]

what's my price point? very simple - anywhere from ~$6 up, depending on the quality. is a $500 bottle "worth" $500? u won't know til u try. so, for me, i would skip the heavy meal, & take the wine. however, AS WE ALL KNOW, wine should only be consumed with food, so therefore, which small morsel of food to have with your $500 bottle is very tricky & an interesting challenge.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well let me try and answer that question outside of the context of my own usage and ownership of wine, but in the context of my experience as a taster who has been privilaged to drink wines from all sources. Currently, as today's market is situated, $300 is the maximum amount anyone ever needs to spend on a bottle of wine. I assure you that within that price point you can find (at retail, not in a restaurant,) wines that are, or are within spitting distance of, the greatest wines of the world. And in my opinion, starting at the $10 price point and steadily increasing to $300, depending on the region, the quality of the wines increases to the extent that I think they are worth the money. But I think that once you pass the $300 threshold, the incremental uptick in quality starts to diminish. Of course this doesn't address the issue of the fact that there are $40 bottles of wine that blow away bottles that cost 2-3 times as much. I mean last night we drank a 1997 Sandrone Barbera d'Alba that cost me $18 and it rocked more then certain Barolos which sell in the $60 price range would.

Of course there are certain wines and regions that have a ridiculous factor built into them. And indeed d'Yqueem is one of those wines. But for some reason, the price of d'Yqueem is reasonable (if you can call $200 a bottle reasonable) until it reaches 15 years of age when the price can double. So I say yes it's worth buying at $200 but not at $400. That's because you can buy 1976 Suiduraut for $200 or less and that's a better buy (we actually drank that wine last week and it was phenomenol.) If $200 gives a sufficient amount of pleasure. Why pay the $400 for the '76 d'Yqueem? But if it doesn't and you want to have it......

[baruch]

this is priceless! d'yqueem!!?? do u mean steve mcqueen? the duke d'yqueem, or the great Chateau d'Yquem? seems to me , an "expert" should, @least, know how to spell the sauterne in question!

[Toby]

seems to me , an "expert" should, @least, know how to spell the sauterne in question!

Wouldn't that be "Sauternes"?