Poll: What price QPR?

Hoke, I get your point, and obviously the whole wine bit is subjective within certain basic boundaries of what humans find appealing to the taste buds (and word meanings too have some degree of nuance or variability).

However, it still seems obvious to me that whatever your definition of QPR, at some point the incremental cost starts increasing dramatically relative to the perceptible quality (no need to assign points for that generality). And, even though what we discern as quality differs from person to person, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that for any $100 or $300 wine, there's something out there at a significantly lower price point ($20? $30? $50?) that would approach that level of quality or enjoyability for any given drinker.

Although I understand the argument that the a person who has significantly greater disposable income might see the additional expenditure for the $100 or $300 wine to be much more acceptable, I'm not convinced that is the same as saying the wine offers a good QPR, since the $100 or $300 wine still costs significantly more for a similar level of perceptible quality (assuming that we can agree the one can find a lower cost wine that approximates or approaches the same level of quality).

And, of course, that doesn't even confront the issue that most people, and probably even a large number of us here, wouldn't be able to consistently blindly pick the higher cost wine as better/higher quality/tastier/etc. Hence my point that this is really an issue of rationalization (we convince ourselves that the higher cost wine is an acceptable value for a variety of reasons).

Having said all that, I'm not necessarily any less subject to shelling out more than I should than anyone else here.

it seems reasonable to me to suggest that for any $100 or $300 wine, there's something out there at a significantly lower price point ($20? $30? $50?) that would approach that level of quality or enjoyability for any given drinker.

I disagree with this and that is why I think a $300 can have good QPR (although most don't).

Jim: Yeah, sure, I'd agree there would naturally seem to be a point of 'diminishing returns' of how good a wine is versus how much money you spent.

The trouble with that, though, is people who are loaded with money look at things differently than those who have to be more careful with their expenditures. And other things enter in to their calculations about how much they are willing to spend, and what constitutes value.

Case in point: while sitting in a doctor's office I was reading an article on "who pays front line designer prices for those runway fashions". And they profiled two women who gladly, with no hesitation whatsoever, paid the full price for their designer clothes. So they attached much more than the, let's say, intrinsic value (good fabric cut and fashioned in an attractive way) to the perceived value.

And that perceived value, to them, is valuable indeed. Yet I think you and I would not see it that way.

To bring it down to a more normal scale---that of most people I know---the purchase of a good wine for a low dollar price is something all of us look for, and congratulate ourselves on when we find it. Yet, even then, there is no set and specific figure that determines where and when the feelgood is going to kick in....that QPR flush...because the ratio...or we can say relationship; doesn't really matter here---is constantly in flux, constantly changing and shifting according to how much you like the wine and how much available money you have.

And another point: sometimes there simply is not a substitute for a specific wine, and then the idea of buying another wine doesn't work. Take Salil and Bueker as two avatars who have a particular fondness for riesling: would something 'almost as good' or 'similar to' Donnhoff, BE Donnhoff, and carry as much value as Donnhoff? Or to put it in more dramatic fashion: hey, David, you can't get any Donnhoff; but I have a really nice Temecula Riesling that's okay. Drink that instead. It's a good QPR.

Then there's Tom T. and his Yquem. If he can afford it, he's going to buy that. And you'll never convince him that something else is just as good.

There's that subjectivity factor raising its head again.

[David M. Bueker]

it seems reasonable to me to suggest that for any $100 or $300 wine, there's something out there at a significantly lower price point ($20? $30? $50?) that would approach that level of quality or enjoyability for any given drinker.

I disagree with this and that is why I think a $300 can have good QPR (although most don't).

It's all about how an individual feels about a particular wine. That's what has made this so interesting tome. Lots of folks with different perceptions of what constitutes QPR.

Case in point: while sitting in a doctor's office I was reading an article on "who pays front line designer prices for those runway fashions". And they profiled two women who gladly, with no hesitation whatsoever, paid the full price for their designer clothes. So they attached much more than the, let's say, intrinsic value (good fabric cut and fashioned in an attractive way) to the perceived value.

That's it, right there. They see a dimension of the thing that others do not notice or value. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think it was JP Morgan who said something like "If a thing is very beautiful and has unquestioned provenance then it is worth whatever price is asked."

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...

I kind of got the notion that Rogov was trigger-happy here. I agree with Hoke's statement.

MY stand is, I know QPR when I see (drink) it. I'm not going into all these cul-de-sacs.

I think it was JP Morgan who said something like "If a thing is very beautiful and has unquestioned provenance then it is worth whatever price is asked."

I looked it up: "No price is too high for a work of unquestioned beauty and known authenticity."

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.

I guess that depends on whether you are expecting a scale that we would all agree on or not, but it is certainly possible to have such a scale. Obviously, as I said, there is a subjective element to the concept of "quality", but that doesn't mean that a scale can't/couldn't be established. It may certainly be established for each individual (perhaps bearing some constraints in mind). For example, according to Robert Parker, there's clearly greater value for money (QPR*) in Ch. Kirwan's 2005 than there is in Ch. Margaux's 2005:

Ch. Kirwan 2005, RP score 92+, US$72, QPR >= 1.28
Ch. Giscours 2005, RP score 91, US$75, QPR = 1.21
Ch. Palmer 2005, RP score 97, US$300, QPR = 0.32
Ch. Margaux 2005, RP score 98, US$3500, QPR = 0.03

Whether you agree with Parker's score or quality scale is another an issue (though certainly not an insignificant one), but there's no doubt that it's possible to apply a scale and therefore calculate (mathematically) a QPR of some kind. Perhaps this (thread-drift) discussion is more about whether a scale can reasonably be defined (and agreed upon) for "quality" than it is about QPR or the definition of QPR(?).


*QPR = Score/Price; scores from April 2008; wine-searcher.com low-end prices excluding tax for LA, CA, USA.

I found this question a bit odd. QPR is about value. If the answer is a price, it ignores the quality ration does it not?

I personally hate the idea of calculating a factor using Parker's, or any other authority's score. I tried to do this when I was a wine newbie and realised it was completely pointless. Neither of the scales are linear, one is someone else's opinion and the other is more about volume and marketing than anything else.

Definitely agree with Jon. I have a few questions. In comparing the QPR of two wines shouldn’t the wines at least be in the same class or type? When calculating QPR why the heck are we using someone else’s quality scoring rating? When calculating QPR does one consider the average price (in ones area or market) of a decent pleasurable wine in that category or class?

Salute

Definitely agree with Jon. I have a few questions. In comparing the QPR of two wines shouldn’t the wines at least be in the same class or type?

No. One might be debating different directions for a dinner/wine purchase and the greater QPR of one wine might be a factor. Hence the importance of the concept. (I.E. I'd rather serve Barolo for my guests but given my budget we'll get a much better wine with this Chinon).

Definitely agree with Jon. I have a few questions. In comparing the QPR of two wines shouldn’t the wines at least be in the same class or type?

No. One might be debating different directions for a dinner/wine purchase and the greater QPR of one wine might be a factor. Hence the importance of the concept. (I.E. I'd rather serve Barolo for my guests but given my budget we'll get a much better wine with this Chinon).

I'd prefer the Barolo, Rahsaan. It fits my own personal Q, and your PR can afford it, you cheap miser.

Thanks Jon and Victor. Your replies get closer to the way I look at things than Ben's. And I would've used many more words.

I'd prefer the Barolo, Rahsaan. It fits my own personal Q, and your PR can afford it, you cheap miser.

Well I've been drinking Burgundy for the past month and haven't been on a Chinon kick in a while, so I'm not walking the talk right now.

But for $30 I don't think there's any doubt that you get more complexity and site-specific expression from Chinon than from Barolo/Burgundy. If that's the definition of quality. If you're just in the mood for something else or prefer the flavors of Barolo/Burgundy then obviously it's a different metric of quality or a different decision-making process. Which is what this conversation is all about!

I'd prefer the Barolo, Rahsaan. It fits my own personal Q, and your PR can afford it, you cheap miser.

Well I've been drinking Burgundy for the past month and haven't been on a Chinon kick in a while, so I'm not walking the talk right now.

But for $30 I don't think there's any doubt that you get more complexity and site-specific expression from Chinon than from Barolo/Burgundy. If that's the definition of quality. If you're just in the mood for something else or prefer the flavors of Barolo/Burgundy then obviously it's a different metric of quality or a different decision-making process. Which is what this conversation is all about!

Tough call, but still within metrical parameters. If we're using the $30 point---and that's a particularly good point for Barolo, Burgundy and Chinon, I think---yeah, I'd have to give the overall nodd of QPR to Chinon. $30 leans toward the high end for Chinon, so should give you enough for a classy bottle thereof.

But as much as I admire Chinon, I'd probably be as interested in stepping down to a different equation and looking for a good producer in Barolo, but at a slightly lesser appellation/price point. And possibly getting away from Barolo altogether and focusing on the grape, Nebbiolo. Within that cruel ceiling of $30, there's a world of wonder in the Nebbiolo offerings that would be both perfectly satisfying and equal to the challenge of most Chinon.

And it's obvious by saying the above that I have a greater preference for Barolo (and Burgundy) than Chinon. Whether as QPR or not. But it still fits within the QPR discussion.

I personally hate the idea of calculating a factor using Parker's, or any other authority's score. I tried to do this when I was a wine newbie and realised it was completely pointless. Neither of the scales are linear, one is someone else's opinion and the other is more about volume and marketing than anything else.

I'm not arguing for any individual's/authority's scale (I already acknowledged there were potential issues with that; Parker scores, LA prices and the particular wines were just used as an example), I'm arguing that it is possible to apply a mathematical approach to QPR. (The meaning of numerical evaluations of quality is another issues, and I expect I'd agree with Hoke on many aspects of that issue to quite some extent.)

Someone else's opinion can be useful at times, especially if you don't have opportunity to taste the wine before purchase, and your palate tends to align with the reviewer. Of course, price is about volume and marketing, but it's also about how much you have to pay (which I would think is a significant thing for most of us!). You're right that the quality (or score) scale isn't linear (just to continue with Parker as an example, about 35% of his scores used to be above 90), but even that can be factored in if one could really be bothered to do it. It's possible to do, and to obtain meaningful results, that was my point.

[James Roscoe]

it seems reasonable to me to suggest that for any $100 or $300 wine, there's something out there at a significantly lower price point ($20? $30? $50?) that would approach that level of quality or enjoyability for any given drinker.

I disagree with this and that is why I think a $300 can have good QPR (although most don't).

It's all about how an individual feels about a particular wine. That's what has made this so interesting tome. Lots of folks with different perceptions of what constitutes QPR.

David, would you stop bring to bring perspective into this! You stirred this pot. Did you not realize this was a troll worthy of the old WLDG? You are to be congratulated my friend!