Quit drinking that cheap plonk

[fresco]

It's not only possible to spend several hundred dollars on a bottle of wine--most of the time it's worthwhile, Mike Steinberger says in a spirited defence of wine pricing:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093337/

[Pan]

It's worthwhile for people who can plunk down a few hundred dollars for wine and for whom that's a priority.

However, I just read the article and see nothing objectionable in it.

Edited January 3, 2004 by Pan (log)

[fresco]

Pan, if I could afford $250 wine I'd drink it every day, probably. I make do with stuff that costs much less.

There is a short list of things I've never regretted spending money for--books, travel, food and wine. If any one of them, regardless of price, creates pleasure, and the memory of pleasure, it's a bargain.

[Pan]

I agree with that - providing you can afford it. There are, after all, a lot of people who create pleasure by going thousands of dollars into debt on their credit cards...

[Florida Jim]

Pan, if I could afford $250 wine I'd drink it every day, probably. I make do with stuff that costs much less.

Really?

Maybe that's why so many winemakers aspire to make wine that costs $250 a bottle.

So its your fault. :)

The real problem with that theory (wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't just theoretical) is that cuts out a whole lot of wine. If it has to cost $250 per, I can't drink anymore Gamay, Muscadet, Chenin, Ruche, Soave, etc. and very little Riesling, Gruner Veltliner, Cab. franc, etc. Then too, I'd have to rule out wines from Oregon, Loire, Beaujolais, most of Italy except Tuscany and the Piedmont, Chablis, etc.

'Sounds kind of boring . . .

I think you're "making do" very well, indeed.

Best, Jim

Edited January 3, 2004 by Florida Jim (log)

[docsconz]

The real problem with that theory (wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't just theoretical) is that cuts out a whole lot of wine. If it has to cost $250 per, I can't drink anymore Gamay, Muscadet, Chenin, Ruche, Soave, etc. and very little Riesling, Gruner Veltliner, Cab. franc, etc. Then too, I'd have to rule out wines from Oregon, Loire, Beaujolais, most of Italy except Tuscany and the Piedmont, Chablis, etc.

'Sounds kind of boring . . .

I can fix this. I could sell you some bottles of these for $250/bottle

[fresco]

The real problem with that theory (wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't just theoretical) is that cuts out a whole lot of wine. If it has to cost $250 per, I can't drink anymore Gamay, Muscadet, Chenin, Ruche, Soave, etc. and very little Riesling, Gruner Veltliner, Cab. franc, etc. Then too, I'd have to rule out wines from Oregon, Loire, Beaujolais, most of Italy except Tuscany and the Piedmont, Chablis, etc.

'Sounds kind of boring . . .

I can fix this. I could sell you some bottles of these for $250/bottle

The world would be a better place if more physicians prescribed wine. But at those prices, I fear many of your patients would be coming to Canada to have their prescriptions filled.

[docsconz]

The real problem with that theory (wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't just theoretical) is that cuts out a whole lot of wine. If it has to cost $250 per, I can't drink anymore Gamay, Muscadet, Chenin, Ruche, Soave, etc. and very little Riesling, Gruner Veltliner, Cab. franc, etc. Then too, I'd have to rule out wines from Oregon, Loire, Beaujolais, most of Italy except Tuscany and the Piedmont, Chablis, etc.

'Sounds kind of boring . . .

I can fix this. I could sell you some bottles of these for $250/bottle

The world would be a better place if more physicians prescribed wine. But at those prices, I fear many of your patients would be coming to Canada to have their prescriptions filled.

Compared to the prices of a lot of prescription meds, this would be a bargain and much tastier too .

[jsolomon]

Docsconz, in the current Placebo Journal there is an account of a doctor who wrote a script for a one-way trip to Puerto Rico for a young lady, so perhaps marketing your own "Tincture of Wine, USP" for $250+ per bottle would be a good gimmick

[docsconz]

jsolomon, that is hilarious!

[madziast]

wine is personal taste but, in my experience, the more you taste, the more you see there IS a difference between an $8 bottle and $80 one. and the more you drink, the more you search for balance, complexity, etc., which generally come at a higher price. it doesn't mean all expensive wine is good or all cheap bad. i think that there is some truth to what the writer describes as "reverse snobbery," where "big-ticket wines are mostly a lot of hype". yes, there are plenty of overpriced bottles (CA cab comes to mind) but let's face it, all wine is not created equal--by and large you get a 'better' (taste being subjective, 'better' to me means multi-layerd, more complex wine) when you spend more. i drink a lot of different wines, all over the price chart (lucky to have friends who can afford to experiment at the higher end) and have found disappointing bottles on both ends. not surprisingly, fewer among the expensive stuff.

plus, small producers have to charge higher prices to make any money at all, often for wines that made by a larger co. would cost half.

[jogoode]

Most of us on the site, it seems, suscribe to the author's philosophy when it comes to food and wine. Even if we aren't eating and drinking at the highest price, most of us gladly pay more everyday for superior taste experiences, even if the difference in the price of bad French place in town and the good one isn't as much as the dollars that separate the 1998 Cheval Blanc and the 1998 Larose-Trintaudon.

Of course, he doesn't deal with the factors that influence the taste experience -- finding a French bistro that equals the best in town in quality but costs a lot less is exciting, and probably contributes to your enjoyment of that bistro. Same goes for oenophiles looking for bargains (as opposed to people who are just cheap). My father collects Netsuke, tiny Japanese carvings of wood, nut, ivory, and bone that ornament pipe cases. Quality Netsuke from well-known artists are beautiful, and many cost well over $10,000. He owns nothing that cost him over $400, and most of his cost under $150. He has big, glossy-paged books showing expensive Netsukes, and I'm sure he'd buy them if he had the money. For the money he has paid for the cheapies, he could own five big-time Netsuke. But he's far happier with the hundreds of bargains, some with cracks, many by little-known artists, that he's collected over the last 40 years.

[Pan]

That's a very significant comment, JJ. I know a man who's almost never paid top dollar for the rare books, prints, and so forth that he owns, and he's assembled quite a large and extremely valuable collection over the years. He couldn't have bought all of those things for what they're worth, but he can sell them for what they're worth.

Of course wine is different in that collectors normally buy it for drinking, not as a resellable investment.

[Susan in FL]

I am even less articulate than usual at the moment, thanks to some really good moderately priced wine, so I hope it will suffice to say, I really liked that article.

Most of us on the site, it seems, subscribe to the author's philosophy when it comes to food and wine...

I agree.

[docsconz]

While I agree that higher priced wine is often if not usually better than lesser priced stuff and I am happy to spend more for a better experience, a lot of people become impressed by the price tag and feel as if something has to be good because it is expensive. It ain't necessarily so.

[jhlurie]

The problem is that the article entertains the ridiculous concept that people are ALL like sheep. In ye olden days they all drank expensive wine because it was the thing to do. These days they all poo-poo expensive wine because its now the thing to do.

Hogwash.

The non-sheep might be capable of understanding that a lot of expensive wine is pure hype and markup, but that other instances of it are entirely appropriate and worth every cent. The non-sheep might also believe that cheaper wine may be good enough to occasionally enjoy for the variety, since perusing excellence on the kind of theoretical schedule being suggested would cut out entire varieties of wine.

Frankly elements of this article insult my intelligence. Do I really need to be told that X amount of experts would like expensive wine Y better than cheap wine Z? Of course I don't. I knew that.

[gsquared]

Focusing only on high ticket wines deprives one of the pleasure of finding gems that are, for the moment, still reasonably priced simply because the demand is not yet there. There are still winemakers around that create the best wine they can, and then allow market forces to determine the price. Two years ago I discovered the 2000 Springfields Whole Berry Cabernet selling at $15 (McD exchange rate) a bottle. A wonderfully complex, leathery wine with a long finish and a clean berry aroma. The 2002 is now selling for $45.

[fresco]

The problem is that the article entertains the ridiculous concept that people are ALL like sheep.  In ye olden days they all drank expensive wine because it was the thing to do.  These days they all poo-poo expensive wine because its now the thing to do.

Hogwash.

The non-sheep might be capable of understanding that a lot of expensive wine is pure hype and markup, but that other instances of it are entirely appropriate and worth every cent.  The non-sheep might also believe that cheaper wine may be good enough to occasionally enjoy for the variety, since perusing excellence on the kind of theoretical schedule being suggested would cut out entire varieties of wine.

Frankly elements of this article insult my intelligence.  Do I really need to be told that X amount of experts would like expensive wine Y better than cheap wine Z?  Of course I don't.  I knew that.

He may also be exaggerating a touch to make a legitimate point, a practice not unknown among essayists and columnists.

[Craig Camp]

That's because the more you are willing to pay, the better you're going to drink.

I have never seen such an incredible piece of bullshit in my life.

...more later when I have more time and am less pissed off that someone actually got this crap published.

[Craig Camp]

The problem is that the article entertains the ridiculous concept that people are ALL like sheep. In ye olden days they all drank expensive wine because it was the thing to do. These days they all poo-poo expensive wine because its now the thing to do.

Hogwash.

The non-sheep might be capable of understanding that a lot of expensive wine is pure hype and markup, but that other instances of it are entirely appropriate and worth every cent. The non-sheep might also believe that cheaper wine may be good enough to occasionally enjoy for the variety, since perusing excellence on the kind of theoretical schedule being suggested would cut out entire varieties of wine.

Frankly elements of this article insult my intelligence. Do I really need to be told that X amount of experts would like expensive wine Y better than cheap wine Z? Of course I don't. I knew that.

Jon, you are being too kind.

Some things beg to be ridiculed. Time to pile on.

[balex]

We have had this argument before here -- and we will have it again. Meanwhile, let's have it now. I violently object to some of the arguments put forward here.

In particular the argument we can caricature as 'expensive wines are better than cheap wines; and that's why they cost more' is demonstrably false in many respects. And worse it is just intellectual laziness. Rather than making decisions on how you like the particular wine -- you can say oh this is a Parker 95 points, and it costs $500 so it's great.

Prices are not set by some central rating authority with direct access to the 'true quality of wine'.

They are set by market forces, which are driiven by supply (sometimes very restricted -le Pin, Burgundy etc.) and demand (manipulated by advertising and marketing).

Secondly, people don't agree on good wine -- people differ radically on what is good wine -- Pavie 2000 is a good example of a very expensive wine that some people don't like. Some people hate Jura wines, or white Rioja, some people don't like Pomerol at all. There is no universal standard.

Thirdly, one wants to drink different wines in different circumstances, with different food. A wine that is perfect with a sandwich on top of a mountain, is probably not perfect with some 3-star meal in Paris.

Some of the wine I like is very expensive, some is quite cheap. I tend to drink more of the good cheap stuff because that is where I get the most enjoyment for my money. I do like good burgundy (v expensive) and good claret (actually quite good value now eg 86 Pichon Lalande is only £80 a bottle). Screaming Eagle 97 is about $2,000 a bottle. Clearly this is a much better wine. If only I was rich enough to buy it I would drink nothing else (irony.gif).

[slkinsey]

I've had some 20 - 50 dollar wines that blew the doors off some 200 - 250 dollar wines. A lot of it has to do with (often not entirely deserved) reputation and supply-and-demand. For example, most wine people would agree that Riesling is one of the great white wines, if not the great white wine of the world. And yet, it is also one of the lowest-priced white wines.

[Florida Jim]

Prices are not set by some central rating authority with direct access to the 'true quality of wine'.

They are set by market forces, which are driiven by supply (sometimes very restricted -le Pin, Burgundy etc.) and demand (manipulated by advertising and marketing).

Secondly, people don't agree on good wine -- people differ radically on what is good wine -- Pavie 2000 is a good example of a very expensive wine that some people don't like. Some people hate Jura wines, or white Rioja, some people don't like Pomerol at all. There is no universal standard.

Thirdly, one wants to drink different wines in different circumstances, with different food. A wine that is perfect with a sandwich on top of a mountain, is probably not perfect with some 3-star meal in Paris.

balex,

These three arguments are really quite valid and well stated.

There is indeed, a disconnect between pricing and quality just as there is between individual tastes - it boils down to preference.

As to pricing, if Parker prefers it, the price rises - one example of market perceptions and consumer's following them. Also the WS annoitning Paloma's merlot as WOTY; the secondary market is setting its price in multiples of the release price and there is virtually no supply available outside that market.

Equally, wines that have a long histroy of high pricing; Opus, Petrus, etc.

Not just supply and demand but the perception of supply and demand.

Likewise, individual preference.

How many times have I heard that "the best wine in the world is the wine you like best?" Quality is a uniquely individual concept.

As a personal example; if I were offerred the 99 Robin, Crozes-Hermitage for $10 and also the 99 La Chapelle at the same price, I would take the Crozes. That runs counter to both history and common perception - but I have had them both and I prefer the Crozes. My persepctive is unique to me; just as yours is to you and so on.

And certainly the food/setting argument is equally accurate.

Well said.

Best, Jim