Would you pay $500 dollars for a bottle of wine?

Hoke,

A website for your perusal: http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/exhibits/online_exhibits/wine/wineintro.html

And I quote: "Fermented beverages have been preferred over water throughout the ages: they are safer, provide psychotropic effects, and are more nutritious."

I don't make this stuff up, my friend.

It is written down in World History.


Peace to you.

OK...back to the topic.

I wonder aloud: What wines would be worth big giant bucks and what would be the criteria to justify such a purchase/price?

What cars are worth more than 20K, and what would be the criteria for their purchase? Does anyone need to go 120 MPH or have heated seats?

Despite sucking way too much gas, I drive a Wrangler. It's my ideal ride (well, besides maybe an old chop-top Bronco I) and I don't need anything flashier. Hopefully a hybrid Wrangler will be ready for my next car purchase. However, I don't begrudge someone who drives a premier car (as long as it's not a Hummer).

What about food? Does anyone need Truffles, Lobster, Morels, Abalone - or even Cadbury Eggs?

Why drink $25 wine when 2-Buck-Chuck is available?

The bottom line is that we all live somewhere North of necessity. Each of us has a different flinch point, but nobody here has the right to tell someone else that what they do is hubris while claiming justification for their own choices.

I've been lucky enough to have some wines in that price area - some are terrible deals - while others are free of regrets. With the former, you can only hope that it wasn't your wallet that took the hit. In the case of the latter, the wines themselves aren't what justifies the price so much as the memory of drinking them.

I pay my dues to the Sierra Club, NRDC and a number of charities. I also work as the director of a non-profit organization which benefits communities in my area (and scholarships 10% of its revenue to needy families). Maybe I shouldn't buy Barolo Riserva or Grand Cru Burgs, but it inspires me and makes me happy so I'll continue to do so.

Anyway, not forcefully directed at you Tim (you've already got your hands full), but that's where things were going and I've got some strong feelings on the subject.

Best,
Joe

Hm.

Because somebody pays way too much for a car or food stuffs as opposed to $2 Buck Chuck is not the point.

The point is: Does the price justify the alleged quality of a given wine.

I think not.

Hm.

Because somebody pays way too much for a car or food stuffs as opposed to $2 Buck Chuck is not the point.

The point is: Does the price justify the alleged quality of a given wine.

I think not.

Excellent. Please tell me which wines have prices that are justified by Tim-endorsed quality.

I’ll alter my purchases accordingly.

.
.
.

I think, Tim, unless you’ve actually tried a wine it’s hard to comment on the quality of it (especially on behalf of someone else’s palate). Live and let drink, or so I always say. You assume the quality isn’t there, so you don’t support it. Fine. Some of us feel differently.

Best,
Joe

Hoke,

A website for your perusal: http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/exhibit ... intro.html

And I quote: "Fermented beverages have been preferred over water throughout the ages: they are safer, provide psychotropic effects, and are more nutritious."

I don't make this stuff up, my friend.

It is written down in World History.


Peace to you.

Tim, did you even read that website? Did you read Hoke's comments?

Your quote about fermented beverages applies to beer as well as wine and Hoke is not arguing that common people never drank wine, but rather that they drank more beer than wine and that the wine they drank was mostly adulterated swill.

Your website confirms this, by citing the first known evidence of wine:

wine was probably already being enjoyed by at least the upper classes in Late Uruk times (ca. 3500-3100 B.C.). Early Dynastic cylinder seals depict the royalty and their entourages drinking beer with tubes/straws from large jars and a second beverage—presumably wine—from hand-held cups.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, but the basic point is not whether common people drank wine, but a) whether they drank more wine than other fermented beverages and b) whether they drank fine wine.

What are your answers to those points?

Distinguishing among types of wine and types of fermented beverages is essential for understanding the complexity of human life, and the fact that the class divisions one may see today have always existed, including in the world of wine.

"Fermented beverages have been preferred over water throughout the ages: they are safer, provide psychotropic effects, and are more nutritious."

Interesting paragraph to support your side of the discussion there, Tim. First off, this sentence doesnt specify that wine is the "fermented beverage". Hoke has been saying that beer (also a fermented beverage) was more commonly consumed by the masses than fine wine. The next sentence in the paragraph calls out that "...alcohol was the primary agent for the development of Western civilization." Again, no specific reference to wine, just to alcohol.
The first mention of wine is to highlight early PointChasers proudly displaying (NOT drinking) a prized bottle ("...which might be dubbed "Chateau Hajji Firuz," was like showing off a bottle of Pétrus today.."). The snippet that refers to a "social lubricant" is again refering to the more inclusive "fermented beverages". Wine in "cross cultural interactions", surely that wasn't the common person representing their culture in this special ceremony, was it?

So I went past the opening paragraph...
The section on Neolithic life makes no mention of who consumed wine (but does point out that beer was also made at the time)
The section on Egypt...and I quote "The wild grape never grew in ancient Egypt. Yet a thriving royal winemaking industry had been established in the Nile Delta..". Here, very explicitly defining wine to be a "royal" beverage.
And finally in the Mesopotamia section "It has usually been argued that barley beer was the alcoholic beverage of choice in ancient Sumer
....But based on chemical evidence for wine inside jars that could've been used to transport and serve it, wine was probably already being enjoyed by at least the upper classes in Late Uruk times (ca. 3500-3100 B.C.). " Again, the only evidence stated is that wine was an elitist beverage and beer more common.

Thanks for the link. It sure helps support Hoke's statements.

Hm.

Because somebody pays way too much for a car or food stuffs as opposed to $2 Buck Chuck is not the point.

The point is: Does the price justify the alleged quality of a given wine.

I think not.

Are we about to take a Marxian turn? Are we going to start talking baout comodity fetishes and "use value" anytime soon? If so, I shall declare myself very very bored...

The point is: Does the price justify the alleged quality of a given wine.

I think not.

Are we about to take a Marxian turn? Are we going to start talking baout comodity fetishes and "use value" anytime soon? If so, I shall declare myself very very bored...

It seems to me, Manuel, that this is actually yet another perverse variant on the Protestant notion that pleasure is inherently sinful. It reminds me of a flame war that I inadvertetly initiated [elsewhere] when I took issue with a poster's assertion that having more than 50 bottles of wine was unsupportable.

Mark Lipton

I shall declare myself very very bored...

Too late, I beat you there.

Somewhere back about the point where winemakers were supposed to reduce their income by millions of dollars by pricing lower than market demand would support because they should be grateful that people bought their wine back before they were discovered.

Let meknow how you make out with that 20% discount you should get at the Cadillac dealer because you bought a 1970 Caddie once...

It seems to me, Manuel, that this is actually yet another perverse variant on the Protestant notion that pleasure is inherently sinful. It reminds me of a flame war that I inadvertetly initiated [elsewhere] when I took issue with a poster's assertion that having more than 50 bottles of wine was unsupportable.

Mark Lipton

Marx, Luther... Funny how close they can get through the miracle of the Wine Internet.

Myself, I would prefer to discuss these things in the light of http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/ and all its possible implications.

Why drink $25 wine when 2-Buck-Chuck is available?

Joe, what Tim wants is the $25 bottle of wine for the price of the Two Buck Chuck. He deserves it, you see, and it's not right that he doesn't get it.

As I said, this was never about wine in the first place: it was about Tim's anger about not being to get what he wants. Nothing a personal discount wouldn't cure; then all this blather about the poor masses would go away.

I have to admit though, the simplistic Marxist cant brought a nostalgic tear to my eye. Talk about your dialectic.

Power to the people! And, come the Revolution......

Joe, what Tim wants is the $25 bottle of wine for the price of the Two Buck Chuck. He deserves it, you see, and it's not right that he doesn't get it.

I don't know, Hoke... An entitlement complex is one thing, but that someone may be as oblivious to the arbitrariness of the marketplace as you imply Tim is is altogether alarming.

At any rate, my long-dead grandfather used to have a sayingthta was very dear to him: "The vice of asking too much must be confronted by the virtue of not giving it". If what Tim wants is for those ludicrously-priced bottles of First-Growth Bordeaux or Napa Cult Cabs to be borught to a price point that the masses can afford, well, sorry, the laws of supply and demand and the self-importance of the producers and marketers of said wines will not permit this. Once cannot crave aspirational, fetishistic product and maintain that one is merely a pure-of-heart hedonist. No siree. That would be the depth of hypocrisy. A Ferrari P 4/5 is so much more than a "mode of transport", on so many different levels. And that bottle of Harlot or Hollerin' Chicken, or whatever other ultra-mega-superposh dreck, well, it's rahter more than just wine...

A more constructive avenue of discussion would be how one, as a mere mortal on a limited income, drinks better for $10, $15 or $20 a day.

[David M. Bueker]

As I said, this was never about wine in the first place: it was about Tim's anger about not being to get what he wants. Nothing a personal discoutn wouldn't cure.

If that's all it was about then the discussion belonged on eBob, or as I call eEntitlement.com "Where those who can afford to pay for the best whine about how much shipping costs."

A more constructive avenue of discussion would be how one, as a mere mortal on a limited income, drinks better for $10, $15 or $20 a day.

Quite right, Manuel. Why waste time whingeing about the wines you can't afford to drink when there are so many wines out there that would be satisfying and rewarding...and so many ways to find those wines.

As on this site and others like it. Instead of asking people in tones of righteous indignation about "justifying" wine prices it would make more sense to ask those people what wines they are drinking in the $10-15-20 range that ring their bells. I've always noted that such questions elicit responses.

This is, in many ways, the best time to be a wine lover. (Yes, yes, I know, I know, in many ways its fraught with peril as well for there is so much mediocrity out there. But when hasn't the bulk of wine been mediocre?) There is so much wine out there, from so many places and so many producers, and most of it at least decent stuff, with some of it impressive, and the odd spectacular one popping up.

I'm always finding delightful surprises. And I can still rely on a stable of producers that maintain their consistency of quality and style.

Takes a little effort, but what worth doing doesn't take effort, eh? With the journey being another reward.

Or, alternatively, you can sit around and gripe about what you can't get.

This is, in many ways, the best time to be a wine lover. (Yes, yes, I know, I know, in many ways its fraught with peril as well for there is so much mediocrity out there. But when hasn't the bulk of wine been mediocre?) There is so much wine out there, from so many places and so many producers, and most of it at least decent stuff, with some of it impressive, and the odd spectacular one popping up.

Oh, come the hell on, Dr. Pangloss! Are you trying to bait me into one of my into Latin Liquidator mode?

This is most definitely not the best time to be a wine lover. The amount of dumbing down, all the spoofulated pseudo-wine, the pretension, the bullshit about "democratization of wine" (the points people would have us believe they're the founding fathers of a benevolent new republic in which we all have access to great wine, but is it so? And I don't mean in terms of the prices, I mean in terms of any real "greatness" there is to be had in what they promote). Don't go dismissing the right to gripe for what one can't get... Hell, I remember a lot of truly amazing wiens I used to buy every vintage. I saw their prices creep up and faithfully forked out the increasing amounts of dollars. But at some point, to give some concrete examples, a house like Ch. Pape-Clément not only got quite expensive, it also changed direction rather lamentably, hired Michel Rolland, and now makes something that bears absolutely no resemblance to what I once knew as Pape Clément. So something was lost and I beleive I have a legitimate reason to gripe. The wine not only got expensive, it also got shitty in terms of my concept of quality. I have abandoned it and now choose to spend my money elsewhere.

That there is that "elsewhere" is a blessing. But I wonder if ever-expanding greed and the temptation to conform to some twisted notion of "what the market demands" may not one day narrow that province down to almost nothing.

I keep telling producers whose wines I love to trust in the power of niche marketing. Hell, I'll pay a few bucks extra. Just don't mess with the style...

who knew that thread-watching was a spectator sport? Better than the NFL preseason, definitely, and I gots myself great seats.

This thread is a soap opera, and sadly, I'm addicted to it.

Oh, come the hell on, Dr. Pangloss! Are you trying to bait me into one of my into Latin Liquidator mode?

Would that make me a Rabelaisian Rouser? Hey, you're cute when you get your Latin temperament frothed up!

That there is that "elsewhere" is a blessing. But I wonder if ever-expanding greed and the temptation to conform to some twisted notion of "what the market demands" may not one day narrow that province down to almost nothing.

Oh, come on, harbinger of doom. You know history better than that. Thus did it ever seem to be. People aren't one whit greedier now than they were in whatever epoch you can summon, Manuel. Nor are they more tempted to conform to market demands (I'd say it more as an attempt to make a killing by responding to market demand.).

Wine changes. It goes through small changes at times, glacial changes over a long, fairly static period of time. Then it can change abruptly in a very short period. Styles shift. Seems like the world (or that part of it, anyway) is ending---and maybe it is in a way, yes---but somehow the apocalypse is averted and things go on.

I understand, Manuel. You're lamenting what you know, what you have come to be comfortable with, what you rely on as seeming sureties. But those sureties were never that sure, and none of it was ever guaranteed. Hey, I don't like the Rollandian influence any more than you do, but I see it as something the world will transition through. Until the next anointed Wunderkind comes along and the lemmings all run to the other cliff.

Wine, and wine drinkers, will survive Monsier Rolland. And Monsieur Points Anointer as well. And all the others flim flam evangelists.

I'm delving into a wine history phase right now, Manuel, and it's affecting my view of things. When you know that Bordeaux was once prized for being simple, light colored and flavored, and more like Beaujolais in its description than anything else, and that what we now think of as Bordeaux was what was unsaleable and left over---the old stuff that stayed in the barrels too long. But that all shifted.

Champagne also was sorta/kinda BoJo-ish, occasionally fizzy (which was a negative then, a flaw). And then it shifted to becoming a positive. Only the thing that became what we now know as Champagne was, by our reckoning, disgustingly treacly sweet. Then it shifted, and became dry, because of fashion (and technology).

Things change. Sometimes they change the way we want them to. Sometimes they change the way we wish they wouldn't. And mostly, people don't want them to ever change at all. But they do.

I still say this is the best of times for wine lovers. Maybe not for those who love one particular style of Bordeaux claret, no. Or Spanish Tempranillo, no. But there is just a vast availability fo better-than-ever-before wines from all over the globe, that I have to fall back on the There Must Be A Pony In There belief (otherwise known as Sturgeons's Law): If Sturgeon's Law maintains that 90% of everything is crap, then that means that up to 10% of that everthing is good. And if the general availability, and general quality level, and general volume has risen so high, and there's MORE crap out there-----then there should be more of the good stuff too! Right? Now we just gotta find the good stuff.

Call me PollyAnna.

I have to say I'm mostly with Hoke on this one. I can lament that some wines have spiraled waaaay beyond my income, or have stylistically changed in ways I find unappealing (or both, say Leoville-Poyferre). But I still think there are more choices overall than say 10-15 years ago. It used to be one's Loire choices were really limited- oh sure maybe some Baumard, Huet, etc, but most stores basically had B & G Vouvray, a Sancerre from someone like Sauvion , maybe a negociant Pouilly-Fume. Now Chambers St alone probably carries 30-40 quality Loires. And Pepiere and Clos Roche Blanche are available in dozens of stores. One's Beaujolais choices were once mostly DuBouef or Momession (or maybe de la Chaize for a cru). Fifteen years ago did one see wines from Bugey, Ghemme, Umbria, Friuli, or Kremstal here in any quantity?

I may not be able to buy old favorites but I can find new ones.

(I'd say it more as an attempt to make a killing by responding to market demand.).

A remark which demands some consideration... The hit-the-big-bucks-fast mentality is indeed closer to what I was trying to describe.

I understand, Manuel. You're lamenting what you know, what you have come to be comfortable with, what you rely on as seeming sureties. But those sureties were never that sure, and none of it was ever guaranteed. Hey, I don't like the Rollandian influence any more than you do, but I see it as something the world will transition through. Until the next anointed Wunderkind comes along and the lemmings all run to the other cliff.

Somehow I don't think you understand me, Hoke. You see me as some sort of anti-modernity figure, stuck in the past with a "Schöne Zeiten" wistfulness. But that simplifies things too much. I harbor no illusions about some general "better state" of things in the past and, furthermore, have a very low opinion of the capacity for good in this species to which I have the very dubious privilege of belonging. The phrase vin trafiqué was almost certainly coined in reference to past fraudulent practices of the proud Bordelais (perhaps it should make a comeback, that phrase, all things considered...).

You see, I went through a strong "History of Wine" phase myself quite a few years ago. I think I could argue that it never ended. As a resource past fraudulence in Bordeaux, Nicholas Faith's trusty The Winemasters of Bordeaux, while sometimes a bit odd in its presentation, can be very useful. The book will affect your view of things some more, if you haven't read it...

My lamentations about properties like Pape-Clément, Léoville Poyferré and all the others that have succumbed to the Rollandian temptation, is that they made great wines already. They didn't need to change the style. The stuff sold well enough. Of course, it was 'traditional" in the sense that it required some cellaring. Now it's juicy-fruity-chocolatey and silky-smooth right out of the gate and smells like it comes from Chile, or Napa, or Rioja. Which is kind of sad. Like a singer scoring a record deal and having herself converted into some sort of Britney-Shakira-Nelly Furtado clone just to get a hit in the right now. No consideration for the music. By the way, in case you're unaware of it, I'd like to take this opportunity to hip you to something very cool and downright crucial regarding the current state of the record business, which shows such alarming parallels to the wine business in terms of the dumbing-down and sluttification of everything. Check out http://beforethemusicdies.com//

But I ramble... Let's just say that what I find saddest is when a friend has just had a kid and comes asking for advice on what Bordeaux to put away for when the kid is old enough. I have to bite my tongue, because what I feel like saying is: "Well, you could buy some stuff, but you could very well be compromising the ol' college fud. Also, I'm not so sure it will age like the old stuff has. It's all "drink me now and gimme some damn points" these days..."

We're shit out of luck when it comes to important wines we can leave to future generations. Or important music made in these times. Or books, for that matter. Or movies. Too much rubbish. And whatever has any soul and real content has to struggle against the shit-dimmed tide of the cesspool. Which is a sad state of affairs, my friend.

(p.s. added later: Also, let me just say that I don't want you to assume I "blame" Michel Rolland or Parker for what's going on in Bordeaux these days. In fact--and here I switch on my historical conscience--, one has to look further back at the time when Michel Rolland was just out of university and Parker was a nobody. Things were already afoot in Bordeaux in the seventies that pointed to what we have today. A whole bunch of châteaux jumped on the new oak bandwagon then, and did the consultant-hiring thing, except that back then it was Professor Peynaud, etc. Today, what was merely a glint in Peynaud's eye is, shall we say, infinitely facilitated by technology and corporate will).

I have to say I'm mostly with Hoke on this one. I can lament that some wines have spiraled waaaay beyond my income, or have stylistically changed in ways I find unappealing (or both, say Leoville-Poyferre). But I still think there are more choices overall than say 10-15 years ago. It used to be one's Loire choices were really limited- oh sure maybe some Baumard, Huet, etc, but most stores basically had B & G Vouvray, a Sancerre from someone like Sauvion , maybe a negociant Pouilly-Fume. Now Chambers St alone probably carries 30-40 quality Loires. And Pepiere and Clos Roche Blanche are available in dozens of stores. One's Beaujolais choices were once mostly DuBouef or Momession (or maybe de la Chaize for a cru). Fifteen years ago did one see wines from Bugey, Ghemme, Umbria, Friuli, or Kremstal here in any quantity?

I may not be able to buy old favorites but I can find new ones.

I see, so it's about availability of a multitude of choices. Wow! How did that one slip by me?

(Oh, and Dale, I think you're selling Chambers short with your estimate of their Loire selection... Inless you were counting only producers, as opposed to label facings).

Why drink $25 wine when 2-Buck-Chuck is available?

Joe, what Tim wants is the $25 bottle of wine for the price of the Two Buck Chuck. He deserves it, you see, and it's not right that he doesn't get it.

As I said, this was never about wine in the first place: it was about Tim's anger about not being to get what he wants. Nothing a personal discount wouldn't cure; then all this blather about the poor masses would go away.

I have to admit though, the simplistic Marxist cant brought a nostalgic tear to my eye. Talk about your dialectic.

Power to the people! And, come the Revolution......

Marxist? [Wha-?!?]

Prefers Two Buck Chuck?

Just guessing, you don't read what I write, now, do you?


Perhaps you could tone it down a bit at ask me a civil question relative to what you object to.


I dunno...seems reasonable to me.

Ooooooooh, Hoke, he didn't just go where I think he went, did he?

Tim, beware, these ITB types can be really rough.

Now I can stand back and watch. Go ahead, boys. Anybody taking bets?

Tim, you're making the common mistake of assuming wine is a simple product of its parts. As I've said before, it's more than the sum of its parts.

Of course, I can only assume that you consider an original Ansel Adams print to be worth the same as something taken by yours truly on my last trip to the mall. They are, after all, the same product with similar costs.

Since we are speaking of the cost of making wine with such authority, can you tell me how much this project cost? Taking in to account not just expenses but also effort and risk...

http://www.mascarello1881.com/text1/PROGETTO.html

Best,
Joe[/i]

Manuel,
Obviously it's not the number of wines available that matter. My point was merely that (partially due to the rise of the internet wine world, and the niche markets it helped open up to enterprising quality driven importers) today there are a lot of truly interesting wines available that weren't before. And in my mind that is a very good thing.

I regret the changes at L-Poyferre (once my "go-to" midpriced Medoc), but don't regard that as the totality of wine (or even Bordeaux). So instead of Poyferre I'll buy Barton, or Magdelaine, or maybe several bottles of CRB or Cazin Couer-Ch. or Grignolino or Donnhoff or......