What's your top price point?

[Lesley C]

When I pay more than $50 for a bottle of wine, major Catholic guilt sets in: images of hungry orphans, nuns collecting money on street corners, down- and-outs my age living in shelters, single mothers, burning in hell -- the works. Guess, some people just don't have that, which might actually be a good thing. I never feel guilty, however, accepting expensive wine as a gift or at a tasting.

[hollywood]

When I pay more than $50 for a bottle of wine, major Catholic guilt sets in: images of hungry orphans, nuns collecting money on street corners, down- and-outs my age living in shelters, single mothers, burning in hell -- the works. Guess, some people just don't have that, which might actually be a good thing. I never feel guilty, however, accepting expensive wine as a gift or at a tasting.

Don't forget the pagan babies.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes but how do you feel about Armani suits?

It's a good thing that the Domaine Gramenon wines max out at about $40 .

[hollywood]

Yes but how do you feel about Armani suits?

It's a good thing that the Domaine Gramenon wines max out at about $40  .

Armani suits are great but Boss suits are a lot less dear. As for Gramenon, just a year ago Ms. Wells was touting their wine at $12-$20 a bottle.

http://www.patriciawells.com/reviews/other/TCdec01.pdf

[Wilfrid]

Yes but how do you feel about Armani suits?

Nice silhouette, poor workmanship.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Those are the lesse rcuvees. You can buy Sagesse or Sierra di Sud for those prices. But if you want their top wines like La Meme, I've seen them cost as much as $40.

[baphie]

Thanks Steve P for a nice summary of your position. I only take issue in a more abstract sense in that extreme subjectivity is rapidly becoming more the rule rather than the exception in fields you mention like art (where your position would be dismissed as 'connoisseurship' with a very belittling tone) or music.

I am also not so sure about the objectivity of a professional's palate. If you mean objective in the sense that there is an abstract to which professionals compare a wine and then pass judgement as to how well it meets that abstract, I disagree. There is a pretty big difference between the palate of a Parker and nearly every restaurant sommelier I have encountered. This is not to say it is all a matter of personal taste and anything goes, but I find far less uniformity than you imply.

Secondly, I don't think it is a given than quality drives price. Yes with D'Yquem. Yes with DRC. But scarcity and brand identification drive price at all ends of the spectrum. I know of wines (especially on restaurant lists) that are deliberately "over-priced" because demand will be higher (paradoxically) at a higher price point because of the perceived higher quality. And what about something like Screaming Eagle? Scarce it is and this drives up the price, but nearly every wine professional I have talked to who has personally tasted it has had nothing good to say about it. (I haven't had it.)

The above criticisms are not to say that you are incorrect- there is far more consensus among educated palates than divergence. And my wife and I are finding one of the ironies (and pleasures) of wine is that our young turk assumptions are continually being challenged and found wanting as our palates get more experience.

A.

[Lesley C]

Clothes are a bit different because they last forever, especially expensive clothes. But when I look at the price of a Calvin Klein suit, the guilt sets in again. I would make a crappy rich person. I'm quite happy spending all my spare $$ on very good food and decent wines. I'm satiated with the Gramenons and Domaine de La Courtade's of this world. And La Meme is so full of love, I'll happily pay $50 for that bottle, 100% guilt free. Huge restaurant markups are the worst. If I could, I'd buy all my wine from the hands of the vigneron who produced it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Baphie - Robert Parker just uses different criteria then the sommeliers you mentioned. But he still approaches it objectively. Where he diverges is in what the criteria should be. For example, he might like a wine that is typically 10% more extracted then a traditonalists viewpoint. Or he might like wines to be aged in American oak barrels instead of French oak. But just because he has a different criteria of what is right and what is wrong, doesn't mean that his methodology for analyzing a wine is different then anyone elses. In fact it is exactly the same.

As for quality driving price, well I didn't say it was the only thing driving price. It is quality plus supply and demand. But in reality, there are very few things that are priced high unless they start out as being items of quality, or at least being perceived as such. 1999 La Tache costs $700 a bottle both because the wine is supposed to be an historic La Tache, and because everyone wants to own it. If it was just historic without the demand, it would be priced more in line with other top wines from the same vintage which would be around $250 a bottle.

If I could describe my experience with wine publications, and the following applies to me as well when I first started collecting, the Wine Spectator is a publication for neophytes who are usually spoon fed American wine as a way to train their palates. With time (how much varies depending on the person,) they switch to the Wine Advocate because it is more comprehensive and there is actually a logic to what they are talking about. But eventually they depart the WA because in reality, it is really a publication for a more highly evolved neophyte. And most people I know give it up in large part after about 5 years of serious collecting. Of course that isn't to say that they aren't useful in many ways. I still recieve and log the Parker scores in the regions that interest me. And it's a great resource if you like and collect Bordeaux. But I have to tell you that I find its usefullness waning. And I hope you take it the right way when I say that hopefully that will happen to you to. Because you will drink a lot better and for a lot less money when that happens.

[hollywood]

With time (how much varies depending on the person,) they switch to the Wine Advocate because it is more comprehensive and there is actually a logic to what they are talking about. But eventually they depart the WA because in reality, it is really a publication for a more highly evolved neophyte. And most people I know give it up in large part after about 5 years of serious collecting.

Maybe I missed out along the way. Which writers or publications do you, Steve, respect at this point in your journey through the vineyards?

[Stone]

I thought Baruch's original jibe at Steve was not terribly offensive but silly in its repitition. No one here is a perfects speller. I thought Steve's response (punctuated by a rimshot) was as inoffensive as possible.

Steve P -- I fully agree with you that wine, like art and many other things, there is no law of diminishing returns (although later you seem to say there is with regard to wines over $400). God knows I've spent ridiculous amounts of money for stuff that only I appreciate. One of my personal problems with expensive wines is that when you look at a per glass price of high-end wines, say $25-50 (or more in a restaurant), I think -- I would rarely spend that much on an entree, and the entree fills me up more, is a fuller more enjoyable experience (chewing (obviously enjoyable in itself), tasting, swallowing (as a joke I'll add, finding later that little bit stuck between your teeth)) than a single glass of wine. Of course, for you the wine may be a more enjoyable experience than any entree could offer.

Is there a limit you would pay for, say, a steak (probably a bad example, but you know what I mean) that's lower than the limit you would pay for a fine wine?

I will say that at one meal at Picholine I had a wine that I learned afterwards was $400 a bottle. It was, without a doubt, the best wine I've ever had (I wish I could remember what it was). Almost a different species of drink.

Edited December 5, 2002 by Dstone001 (log)

[amandam]

But Chilean wines??  Please.  Chile produces some nice, drinkable table wine.  And on the upper end, some very promising wines.  But, for my money, there is only one great Chilean wine, and that is Domus Aurea, which retails upwards of $50 (it is currently on the wine list at both Metrazur and March, for those interested).

When I mentioned Chilean wines as being great bargain wines, I was referring to them as everyday drinking wines, not higher end or "special occasion" wines. For the price, I think they are very decent wines. In retail shops, I would always recommend them to customers interested in spending no more than $10. Spanish wines are great too, and can be found to be relatively inexpensive. There are also some very expensive ones which are excellent as well. I was merely suggesting Chilean wines as a cheap alternative to other wines, at the same price level, which are horrible.

[hollywood]

One of my personal problems with expensive wines is that when you look at a per glass price of high-end wines, say $25-50 (or more in a restaurant), I think -- I would rarely spend that much on an entree, and the entree fills me up more, is a fuller more enjoyable experience (chewing (obviously enjoyable in itself), tasting, swallowing (as a joke I'll add, finding later that little bit stuck between your teeth)) than a single glass of wine.

You pay $749 for a concrete vibrator but you balk at $25-$50 for a glass of the nectar of the gods?

[Stone]

One of my personal problems with expensive wines is that when you look at a per glass price of high-end wines, say $25-50 (or more in a restaurant), I think -- I would rarely spend that much on an entree, and the entree fills me up more, is a fuller more enjoyable experience (chewing (obviously enjoyable in itself), tasting, swallowing (as a joke I'll add, finding later that little bit stuck between your teeth)) than a single glass of wine.

You pay $749 for a concrete vibrator but you balk at $25-$50 for a glass of the nectar of the gods?

Like I said, I've paid ridiculous amounts of money for stuff no one else would appreciate. But it has a free floating head!

[baphie]

Baphie - Robert Parker just uses different criteria then the sommeliers you mentioned. But he still approaches it objectively. Where he diverges is in what the criteria should be. For example, he might like a wine that is typically 10% more extracted then a traditonalists viewpoint. Or he might like wines to be aged in American oak barrels instead of French oak. But just because he has a different criteria of what is right and what is wrong, doesn't mean that his methodology for analyzing a wine is different then anyone elses. In fact it is exactly the same.

I think there is more divergence than you allow. Some highly rated RP wines are considered undrinkable by other educated palates. That is more than a 10% difference.

1999 La Tache costs $700 a bottle both because the wine is supposed to be an historic La Tache, and because everyone wants to own it. If it was just historic without the demand, it would be priced more in line with other top wines from the same vintage which would be around $250 a bottle.

??? on the LaTache Why is 99 so historic? LaTache is my top Burgundy and 99 is the year my son was born. Zut! That my bust my price point.

]If I could describe my experience with wine publications, and the following applies to me as well when I first started collecting, the Wine Spectator is a publication for neophytes who are usually spoon fed American wine as a way to train their palates. With time (how much varies depending on the person,) they switch to the Wine Advocate because it is more comprehensive and there is actually a logic to what they are talking about. But eventually they depart the WA because in reality, it is really a publication for a more highly evolved neophyte. And most people I know give it up in large part after about 5 years of serious collecting. Of course that isn't to say that they aren't useful in many ways. I still recieve and log the Parker scores in the regions that interest me. And it's a great resource if you like and collect Bordeaux. But I have to tell you that I find its usefullness waning. And I hope you take it the right way when I say that hopefully that will happen to you to. Because you will drink a lot better and for a lot less money when that happens.cvxcvcx..

No offense taken. Actually I hope you have time to read my post about my top ten wines of the year and provide some feedback based on your experiences.

I respect Parker and use his ratings for certain wines. I actually pay more attention to *what* he says about wines than the numbers. We have been fortunate in having some outstanding retailers here that guided our wine education, so reliance on the WS was never an issue. I simply never trusted it as I immediately learned the ratings were the result of a committee. I quickly learned where RP's palate differed from mine when I bought an inexpensive Spanish red (this was some years ago) which garned an high rating and I thought it tasted like rye whiskey. After reading the Atlantic article on him (I blundered on to it over Thanksgiving at my parents), I respect him even more while disagreeing him. It is kind of funny - as my wife and I's palates evolve, we grow closer to him in some ways and way further away in others.

[hollywood]

But it has a free floating head!

What was I thinking?!

[tighe]

When I pay more than $50 for a bottle of wine, major Catholic guilt sets in: images of hungry orphans, nuns collecting money on street corners, down- and-outs my age living in shelters, single mothers, burning in hell -- the works. Guess, some people just don't have that, which might actually be a good thing. I never feel guilty, however, accepting expensive wine as a gift or at a tasting.

Funny, but I feel the same Catholic guilt when I buy a bottle of wine that is so cheap that I know the poor schlep who grew the grapes probably isn't making more than a nickel from that bottle.....

[hollywood]

When I pay more than $50 for a bottle of wine, major Catholic guilt sets in: images of hungry orphans, nuns collecting money on street corners, down- and-outs my age living in shelters, single mothers, burning in hell -- the works. Guess, some people just don't have that, which might actually be a good thing. I never feel guilty, however, accepting expensive wine as a gift or at a tasting.

Funny, but I feel the same Catholic guilt when I buy a bottle of wine that is so cheap that I know the poor schlep who grew the grapes probably isn't making more than a nickel from that bottle.....

If it's that cheap, it's probably been sold at fire sale prices to some distributor (who should perhaps be feeling the guilt) and your buying it doesn't cost the poor grower anything.

[britcook]

How does one you value their palate? Does Lloyd's insure it? And why is how much you would spend to keep it amused about wine and not about you? Isn't that irrelevent in a food chat room?

If the point of this thread was to offer the advice to the people who post here that they don't need to pay $500 for a top sauternes but they can pay $100 instead, now that's valuable information. But if the point is to say that people who pay $500 are idiotic and have more money then sense, well I don't think that's an appropriate comment for you to make because you are talking about people and not wine. This forum is called "Wine" not "Rich People."

Methinks I have been misinterpreted. I certainly don't think people who pay $500 for a wine are idiotic, if you are enraptured by the contents and can afford it, may you be blessed with many bottles. What, in my basic peasant way, I am trying to elicit is what is it that determines that you should spend that much on a single bottle rather than enjoy a decent case of something almost as good. It's a request for information, not a political statement. I have several friends, with cellars much more extensive than mine, who derive immense pleasure from their premiers cru and classed growths, and I stand in awe of their abilities to differentiate the subtle nuances of "top class" wines. But I have other friends in the same wine group who profess to be experts who, in a blind tasting, couldn't tell a Maltese wine from a highly respectable cru bourgeois (with a 4x price differential). What I am trying to stimulate discussion on is that, for the average person, at what point does the law of diminishing returns (the French RPQ, your letters slightly jumbled, same meaning) apply. In a process of peer review am I (are you) too ambitious or too timid. Should I (you) be looking for great deals in the bargain bins or should we be looking to expand our horizons because for those extra few notes our pleasure will be substantially increased.

As for the comment about spending, that is another cleverly veiled insult. Statement of attitude. I enjoy good food and wine but (there's that word again) like most people on this board I have to pay for them out of a finite income. It might be nice (I wouldn't know) to be able to disregard prices and just indulge one's palate regardless of expense, but reality intrudes and, being the hedonist that I am, I wish to extract the most pleasure I can out of every pound, dollar or whatever currency that I spend. I would do that (and I suspect so would most others with an interest in the gastronomic arts) whatever my income. The level of spend is not that relevant, but the enjoyment of what you buy is.

Isn't this forum about the enjoyment of food, and in this particular section about wine? If we didn't talk about our personal views what would be the point? I may not agree with every point of view expressed here (you may have noticed), and I'm fairly convinced many people have me pigeonholed as pompous a**hole, but that's life, I enjoy it and hope you do too.

[Stone]

How does one you value their palate? Does Lloyd's insure it? And why is how much you would spend to keep it amused about wine and not about you? Isn't that irrelevent in a food chat room?

As for the comment about spending, that is another cleverly veiled insult

If this is the "comment about spending" to which you are referring, I think Steve P was simply pointing out that the question of how much a person would spend to enjoy their wine/food/whatever is inherently a question about the person as much as about the wine/food. But there's a lot of kooky syntax going on, and maybe I don't understand what all the dander is about.

[Lesley C]

I just met a producer in the Cotes du Provence who makes tons of crappy wine. He also owns one of the largest vineyards in Chateauneuf, owns major real estate in Provence and drives a spiffy Range Rover. Trust me, the guys and negoces making cheap wine are making tons of the stuff and a tidy profit. It's the mid-range vignerons trying to make great wine, competing to find a place in the big markets, that I worry about. Especially this year with all the horrible weather in France -- save the Loire.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think there is more divergence than you allow. Some highly rated RP wines are considered undrinkable by other educated palates. That is more than a 10% difference.

Baphie - You misunderstood what I said. Robert Parker uses a certain methodology to assess a wine. It's the same methodology that everyone else uses and it is objective in nature. That he might like wine that is aged in new oak casks as opposed to aged in old oak is a palate preference. That part is subjective (to a point). But the way he assesses what type of oak isn't. Understand? As for divergance, Parker represents an entire style of wine appreciation that is divergant from the traditional style. How divergant it is differs depending on the region.

on the LaTache Why is 99 so historic? LaTache is my top Burgundy and 99 is the year my son was born.

Because '99 is a great vintage. Some people say the best one in the second half of the 20th century. And the La Tache is perfect.

Actually I hope you have time to read my post about my top ten wines of the year and provide some feedback based on your experiences.

I read your list. When I first started collecting wines I used to enjoy drinking those wines. Now I hate them. Why is hard to explain but it has to do with how my palate developed based on getting the chance to drink the semenal wines from each region of the world.

Britcook - My point more than accusing you of making a political statement is that the issue of money is sort of a minefield and if you aren't perfectly clear about what you mean, it's easy for things to go a bit haywire. But as to your question, for the average person the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly. The average person usually can't tell a good wine from a great wine. I have trouble doing it myself all the time. But in general I find that the extra high notes are usually worth it if they are high enough.

Maybe the best way to answer your question as to my own preferences is to say that I used to aspire to drink wine everyday. But wines that were priced in that range didn't do it for me. So I decided to drink a few times a week at a higher price point because the wines are more interesting. So for my money, I'd rather drink a great wine once a week then a case of wine that adds up to the same money spent. But I'm not sure what you mean about a "cleverly veiled insult." But I think Stone has nailed the issue. And once again it comes down to what you offered the point for.

Lesley and Tighe - You should increase that price point. You guys deserve it. The suits too!

Edited December 6, 2002 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[oraklet]

steve, thanx for explanation of "overextraction".

of course, you are absolutely right about the objectivity/subjectivity thing.

now, i'm pretty average, and i think the average wine drinking person can tell - and enjoy - the difference in quality of wines. the reason the average person won't buy the very good wine is that they are forced to, or chose to, prioritize. we do - at least some of us - know what we're missing. the very best wines ARE generally worth the price (ok - some of them may be over priced due to demand/availability). i'm not sure, though, that the "nice" are - at least i think they often aren't. i can find a nice beaujolais at 10$, but bordeaux or penedes at the same price is often horrid.

and you know, before coming to this board, i didn't even know the names of a lot of the apparently great wines discussed here. i halted my self education in wine about 15 years ago, so maybe that's the explanation: some of them may be "newer" wines?

[britcook]

Things are looking up, not only did I understand Mr P's post I almost agreed with it, I may have a glass to celebrate!

Just one point I'd like to nail though, this question of objectivity. Parker is NOT objective, he uses a consistent methodology, explains his parameters and is accurate in their application but the original criteria are, as they must be, subjective. Slight digression for explanation. A couple of years ago a motoring magazine ran an "objective" test to find the "best" car in Britain, they had several categories - acceleration, handling, comfort, price, etc., maybe a dozen in all and each one had a defined scale of sorts. Every car had a score in each category, then they applied weightings to each category to give an overall score. And, surprise, surprise the car that won this "objective" test was the one they had been subjectively raving about all year. The "objective" scoring system had been manipulated to give the results that they subjectively wanted. Parker does the same. His mythical 100 point wine is his idea of perfection, his subjective idea, and his system basically rates how close a wine gets to this ideal, which can then be objective. So one person's richness is another's overextraction, one's well-structured tannins is another's mouth-puckering imbalance - neither view is wrong, and there are experts who will agree or disagree with each other depending on their own personal preferences. In matters of taste there are no absolutes, no fully objective assessments, no gold standard of quality. You may get close to consensus in some areas, but even then there's a suspicion that it may be due to education, learning to appreciate what the previously accepted masters had determined was "the best".

[Steve Plotnicki]

That Parker has preferences doesn't mean he doesn't employ a skillset based on objectivity when evalutaing wines. Like I have been trying to explain (and maybe doing a bad job of it,) having the ability to discern what type of oak a wine has been aged in and for how long is a skill. Preferring one type over the other including length of aging in those barrels is a preference providing the reason is a preference and not something else. If you were to speak to Parker/Rovani about this and ask them about what we will call "the house style," they say, and rightly so I might add, that along with over-extracted, highly oaked and highly alcoholic wines, they give many wines that don't fit that profile, like Barolos, very high scores. And that what is important to them isn't a certain style of winemaking, what is important is for a wine to be "packed" to the extent that it displays characteristics that makes them feel the wine will last a long time. They say that the more stuffing a wine has, logic says the wine will be better. So I think much of what people charcaterize as Parker's palate preference is really his objective assessment of the wines aging qualities (there's that word again.)

Where subjectivity enters this issue is when should somebody drink a bottle of wine? What Parker has done, and this largely goes back to the neophyte issue, is to make drinking young wines popular. Prior to his emergence as the dominant critic, people laid wines away until they were mature and that was that. But along he comes, annoints a new style of winemaking as one that will produce great wines in the long term, gives them a drinkability window for the future but says they are also delicious to drink now. And this flys predominantly for the reason that tens of thousands of new collectors are developed from the 80's on. People are all first bulding cellars so they don't have any old wine to drink. And they all want to drink top wines so they are willing to drink these wines today. And new, clean, fresh tasting wine with lots of primary fruit is much easier to understand then mature wine with more unusal flavors that you need a skillset to appreciate.