Poll: What price QPR?

The whole QPR thing is just a subset of the Fishbein Model (or Theory of Reasoned Action), which I studied many years ago in business school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action

This raises the question of how you evaluate the Q part of QPR.

If you are a Parker (or Speculator) pointer, you'd think that would be easy, but point scores are a moving target and the points awarded to lower cost wines aren't equivalent to higher priced wines.

Example - RP gave 93 points to a 2001 Cantano Solanera, a wine from that famous area called Yecla in Spain. It cost around $10 a bottle.

The 2001 Cheval Blanc got the same score. It cost around 18 times what the Yecla wine cost.

So is the 93 point score qualitatively different for one than the other? And which way do you take it when calculating QPR? Many would say that the Cheval Blanc at that price was a far better buy than the $10 bottle. Others would chortle and sling 10 cases of the Yecla in the basement. Who would be wrong?

I agree that QPR can't be related to a defined price, it is dependent on just what the wine is. Today, I'd pay $200 all day long for that Cheval and wouldn't give you a nickel for the Yecla. I just wish I'd had that opportunity when the wines were released!

This raises the question of how you evaluate the Q part of QPR.

Example - RP gave 93 points to a 2001 Cantano Solanera, a wine from that famous area called Yecla in Spain. It cost around $10 a bottle.

The 2001 Cheval Blanc got the same score. It cost around 18 times what the Yecla wine cost.

But this also raises the question of how to evaluate the P part of QPR. It is really 18 times the cost to produce Yecla to produce Cheval Blanc. If not is paying for excess profit acceptable for a wine to be considered QPR. When it comes to retail price to production cost, the rule of thumb that I know is that the retail price should be the cost per ton of grapes divided by 100. Therefore a $10 bottle of Yecla should be made from grapes that cost $1000/ton while the Cheval Blanc would cost more.

You need to be very careful when you say that wine X got 93 points from Parker and wine Y (very different wine) also got 93 points. I had a long conversation with Parker about that many many years ago when he gave a Moscato d'Asti and an Yquem the same score. I haven't subscribed to Parker in over ten years but when I did subscribe he always made the point that a wine is judged vis a vis its peer group and his "standard" of what that particular wine is. That is, Moscato d'Asti and Sauternes are not judged against the same standard.

Geting back to QPR, I also don't think you can use the Parker 100 point scale for Q. If Parker gave a Guigal CDR 88 points ($12) then in my humble opinion a Ridge Geyserville is well past 100 (on the same Q scale) and Yquem is way past 1000 on the Q scale.

So,

Guigal CDR, Q=88, P=12, QPR=7.3
Ridge Geyserville, Q=440 (yes, 5 times better than Guigal CDR), P=30, QPR=14.7
Yquem, Q=2200 P=280, QPR=7.9

Geyserville is by far the highest QPR (in this example!) and the least expensive wine has the worst QPR.

I don't believe that the quality of wines much over $50 or 60 is sufficiently greater than high-quality similarly-styled lower priced wines to justify saying that they deliver good quality given their price. As you start paying $75, 100, or more for wines, you are paying for something other than purely a high quality wine.

While most of my purchases are of under $20 wines, and 90% under %50, when I do pay $100 I do so because I believe that wine offers sufficient quality for that price- else I wouldn't buy it. Of course, "quality" is a loaded term, because I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective scale of wine quality. But for me, I'll spend $100 because what is in that bottle is worth it (to me).

That said, while there is no "dollar limit" to QPR to me, like Matt I probably wouldn't normally use the term QPR wine for anything over $20-25

I voted for a ceiling of $30 (= a range from €22-25) because that allows inclusion of such world class wines as Vouvray from Huet and Foreau, a lot of Germans and, until a few years ago, Rancia from Fèlsina. It is also about my current limit for regular purchases. (I'm well stocked for my likely needs in more "important" wines.)

Tim,
You echo my own feelings to an eerie extent. However, there are a few troubling exceptions, such as the wines of Clos Rougeard and e.g. Chandon de Briailles P-V "Ile des Vergelesses" that are such exceptional examples of their type that the extra price seems well warranted, even if it's above my mental cutoff of $30. YMMV, of course.

Mark Lipton

Just my two cents worth on the discussion (I decline to vote).

I stress the 'R' (ratio) aspect. QPR is, colloquially speaking, "bang for the buck". So I don't limit QPR to just wines with a lowish price. If there's a wine selling for $100 that ought to be selling for $300, that's the same as a wine selling for $10 that is equivalent to wines priced $30. The quality:price ratio is 3:1 in both cases.

If we're talking QPR, both the P and the Q are irrelevant. It is the ratio between the two that is key.

-Paul W.

As a staunch defender of Canned Food Outlets wines that cost $1.50 and greatly out-perform wines at the $5 range and above, I put my personal ceiling at $50. That was based on my knee-jerk reaction that anything over $50 would have a hard time impressing me enough to be considered a high QPR wine. But then that d'Yquem example came up and now I'm not so sure. Can you have a wine with such a stratospheric Q that the P just doesn't matter? (And I'm talking mere mortals here, not hedge fund managing billionaires, for whom no price can be too high.) I guess that might go against the common definition of QPR, which emphasizes the P, but still....

[David M. Bueker]

Lucky for me I prefer Rieussec (and La Tour Blanche) to Yquem. This makes the whole discussion much simpler.

I don't believe that the quality of wines much over $50 or 60 is sufficiently greater than high-quality similarly-styled lower priced wines to justify saying that they deliver good quality given their price. As you start paying $75, 100, or more for wines, you are paying for something other than purely a high quality wine.

While most of my purchases are of under $20 wines, and 90% under %50, when I do pay $100 I do so because I believe that wine offers sufficient quality for that price- else I wouldn't buy it. Of course, "quality" is a loaded term, because I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective scale of wine quality. But for me, I'll spend $100 because what is in that bottle is worth it (to me).

That said, while there is no "dollar limit" to QPR to me, like Matt I probably wouldn't normally use the term QPR wine for anything over $20-25

Dale, I think you're not that far from where I stand. When I buy wines over $30, it's because I like the producer, or the particular style, etc. It's rarely that I'm rationalizing to myself that it is somehow a good QPR. Even if I had stupid amounts of money, I think it's demonstrable that the more expensive wines are rarely a good QPR (there are always less expensive options that approach the quality of significantly more expensive wines), it's simply that I have enough money to not really be concerned with the incrementally greater cost for marginally better quality.

PS - And, just to prove I'm not penny pincher, the most I've spent for a single bottle is $500.

Just my two cents worth on the discussion (I decline to vote).

I stress the 'R' (ratio) aspect. QPR is, colloquially speaking, "bang for the buck". So I don't limit QPR to just wines with a lowish price. If there's a wine selling for $100 that ought to be selling for $300, that's the same as a wine selling for $10 that is equivalent to wines priced $30. The quality:price ratio is 3:1 in both cases.

If we're talking QPR, both the P and the Q are irrelevant. It is the ratio between the two that is key.

This ignores that there may be other wines which cost less but approach the same Q.

Granted, the subjectivity of wine tasting is such that Q is a bit of a moving target (that and the fact that I'd bet most tasters are profoundly influenced by price, label, etc).

However, what if I could find a $30 dollar wine that approaches the quality of the $100 and $300 wines? Assuming that you had no intention of flipping or impressing friends by pulling out a big name bottle, is spending slightly more than 3x the $30 wine really make the $100 wine a good QPR choice?

However, what if I could find a $30 dollar wine that approaches the quality of the $100 and $300 wines? Assuming that you had no intention of flipping or impressing friends by pulling out a big name bottle, is spending slightly more than 3x the $30 wine really make the $100 wine a good QPR choice?

Here's a concrete QPR analysis based on this situation:

Let Q100 designate the quality of the $100 wine. Suppose the $30 wine is 90% of the quality of the $100 wine. Then the QPR of the $100 wine is Q100/100. The QPR of the $30 wine is (0.9 x Q100)/30. Work through the math and you end up with the $30 wine having a QPR three times better than the $100 wine. Thus the $100 wine, although better quality than the $30 wine, in terms of QPR the $30 wine is three times better than the $100 wine.

-Paul W.

I am amused. So many deride scores as being subjective but here we are trying to set a mathematical forumla to completely objectify value for money. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

On which I ask once again:

- Is a Van Gogh painting that goes for $13 million good value for money?
- Does a magnum bottle of 1900 Chateau d'Yquem that goes for 13,000 pounds sterling represent good value for money?

I am amused. So many deride scores as being subjective but here we are trying to set a mathematical forumla to completely objectify value for money. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

On which I ask once again:

- Is a Van Gogh painting that goes for $13 million good value for money?
- Does a magnum bottle of 1900 Chateau d'Yquem that goes for 13,000 pounds sterling represent good value for money?

Not sure if this is directed towards me but I did not try to build a formula to objectify value for money. I did however, attempt to prove that there becomes a point where price can continue to rise higher without end while eventually the incremental increase in quality has to slow or come to a stop if you believe that there is are perfect 100 point wines in the world. The result is that there is a point of price somewhere where QPR stops to exist. It is possible that 13,000 pounds is a good value for a magnum of 1900 Chateau d'Yquem. It may even be a once in a lifetime experience. This however, does not ensure that it is still a QPR as I preceive it.

I am amused. So many deride scores as being subjective but here we are trying to set a mathematical forumla to completely objectify value for money. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

On which I ask once again:

- Is a Van Gogh painting that goes for $13 million good value for money?
- Does a magnum bottle of 1900 Chateau d'Yquem that goes for 13,000 pounds sterling represent good value for money?

It's only a contradiction if one is decrying scores while at the same time attempting to assign specific values to each aspect of the QPR, Daniel.

Which I don't do, so at least my conscience is clear. Well, on that point, anyway...

[David M. Bueker]

Paging Oswaldo...Oswaldo line 3.

[Jenise]

Put me in category of "it's a ratio, so no set limit." I'd call most Huets and Cotats generally good QPR, at $30 and $45 respectively. CFE is good QPR to me in same range. But I've also called '83 Cheval Blanc good QPR when it was selling for $200.

While I agree with you, I would use 'value' or another set of words to convey that, not QPR. JC's description, including the $20 limit, describe when I *do* use it.

QPR is a ratio. Ratios are formulae. Assigning a numeric value to quality is built into the very concept of QPR. You can't compare price (a numeric quantity) to quality without assigning a numeric value, or at least a numeric ordering, to quality.

-Paul W.

QPR is a ratio. Ratios are formulae. Assigning a numeric value to quality is built into the very concept of QPR. You can't compare price (a numeric quantity) to quality without assigning a numeric value, or at least a numeric ordering, to quality.

-Paul W.

Only if I am bound to your definitions and your rules, Paul.

QPR is a ratio. Ratios are formulae. Assigning a numeric value to quality is built into the very concept of QPR. You can't compare price (a numeric quantity) to quality without assigning a numeric value, or at least a numeric ordering, to quality.

-Paul W.

Only if I am bound to your definitions and your rules, Paul.

A bit of a thread drift but...

Not just Paul's definition and "rule", but the definition of the word ratio for many people - though, certainly, it's a more mathematical definition.

Definitions for the word ratio tend to go something like:
"the relation between two similar magnitudes with respect to the number of times the first contains the second," or
"the relationship between two groups or amounts, which expresses how much bigger one is than the other."

If we wanted to just talk about the relationship between one thing and another thing, we could say relationship rather than ratio. I feel that reducing the meaning of the word ratio to relationship means we've lost something in the depth of meaning our language can possess (since ratio actually implies more than just relationship, it implies a numerical ratio, exactly as Paul said!). Of course, you might not believe the dictionary definition to be better than the populations' general definition of the word ratio (clearly, I happen to think it is), but I'm not sure (and would be interested to hear) why you think it would not be? TIA

Ben, I might say in response to your question that in this particular usage of QPR, which I see as an integral concept rather than subdividing into discrete parts, I prefer to consider the expression not as a precise mathematical expression but one more akin to another, less numerically connected sense of ratio as a proportion.

As in:
ra·tio noun \ˈrā-(ˌ)shō, -shē-ˌō\
1
a : the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions
b : the relationship in quantity, amount, or size between two or more things : proportion

And of course, the application here would be the b. rather than the a.

Thus, the QPR, with ration used as a proportional term, could suggest that since there is indeed no way to apply specific numerical values to either the quality or value (value being a malleable and vague term at best, and also unspecifiable in a numeric sense; and quality being a term that is even less specific and numerically dependent or definable than value), that the term 'ratio' in this instance could not be construed in any way as a specific mathematical term and reliant only upon mathematical definitions and restrictions of one (albeit given the primary one) meaning of the word. And further, that words when used necessarily take on meanings, shadings, and connotations from the context in which they are used. For Paul, that was obviously a strict mathematical meaning (and again, yes, the primary meaning) and he could not---or did not chose to---see my interpretation of the word (which again I will remind is not a singular word as used here, but part of a larger concept, which again makes the use of the word malleable insofar as it is part of that larger concept) as a somewhat different (subtle, perhaps, but nonetheless there if one is looking at the entirety of what I said rather than one specific point contained in what I was saying), and that I believed what was meant was implicit in what was said, and the way that it was said, in a casual conversation rather than quoting from a mathematical treatise, and with my expectation (misplaced, I will admit) that Paul would be capable of comprehending and understanding the difference in usage of the term as one that I had modified according to both my preferences and the usage as the aforesaid part of the aforesaid whole in the sense that I was not describing a strict mathematical formula. Rather the reverse, actually.

Then again, that could be pettifogging bullshit on my part, and it is quite possible that I was reacting with just the slightest touch of pique at Paul taking the occasion to lecture me as to what I could do with my use of the word or phrase.

If you prefer to substitute 'relationship' for the 'R' in QPR, then please do so. That's fine with me, and I certainly understand your point, Ben, and can see how that would clarify things more neatly for you.

As to the final question, I share your desire for words to be used appropriately, and for people to be aware of their uses. However, I also believe that words have the potential for shifting their meanings, and nuances and shadings can be added. (This isn't pettifoggery, by the way, but an honest answer to an honest question on your part.) If I wish to use a word that way, I can. And I sometimes do. Rather than necessarily reduce the richness of the language, as you say that does, I believe there is more of an addition to the language, in the sense that I am not "reducing the meaning of the word ratio to relationship", but rather adding (well, in my mind at least) the idea of ratio in the sense of the second meaning I quoted above (If you can recall back that far in this post. ), a contextual meaning which is not meant in or limited to the strict mathematical meaning of ratio. In that sense, an addition can not be construed as a reduction. Of course, it can be seen as sloppy, or awkward, or a failure to achieve what was desired, but that's another thing altogether, isn't it?

since there is indeed no way to apply specific numerical values to either the quality or value... that the term 'ratio' in this instance could not be construed in any way as a specific mathematical term and reliant only upon mathematical definitions

I disagree with that: I think it is possible to apply specific numerical values to quality. Of course, it would require development of a system that defined quality in some numerical sense, but it is still possible to do, and such systems clearly already exist. Of course, if one believes there is no real meaning in applying a numerical value to (admittedly, at least partially subjective) concepts such as quality, then I suppose it wouldn't make sense to do so either.

If you prefer to substitute 'relationship' for the 'R' in QPR, then please do so.

I have heard plenty of people say "Quality-Price Ratio" but rarely hear "Quality-Price Relationship" so I suppose I assumed (clearly, incorrectly) the term QPR implied a mathematical ratio rather than simply a relationship. (BTW, even if the term quality were not quantifiable, it would still be possible to talk about QPRatio in a quantitative sense.)

Rather than necessarily reduce the richness of the language, as you say that does, I believe there is more of an addition to the language, in the sense that I am not "reducing the meaning of the word ratio to relationship", but rather adding (well, in my mind at least) the idea of ratio in the sense of the second meaning I quoted above... a contextual meaning which is not meant in or limited to the strict mathematical meaning of ratio.

Fair enough, and thanks again for taking the time to respond to my question.

Ben: I, in turn, am sorry for causing a blip of a thread drift by not realizing that the mathematically-minded would not stutter-step when I used a word in a non-mathematical sense.

I do understand your point vis a vis the quality-price relationship; I simply don't agree with it because, as you say, I can't attach specific numbers on a scale to either part of the ratio. I don't even believe a scale exists, much less that it is neatly and precisely measurable.

Not a big thing: we just look at things differently thassall.

[David M. Bueker]

Welcome to the Wine Lovers Discussion Group: the best place on the net to talk about how people talk about math.