Poll: What price QPR?

[David M. Bueker]

So twice in the last week the subject of QPR has been mentioned for wines that are not exactly cheap. So here's a poll: what's your dollar limit to define a wine as a good QPR (Quality Price Ratio for those who are just learning geek speak)?

Explanations of your preferences are greatly appreciated!

It depends on the wine. I would quickly pay $100 for a 2001 d'Yquem. Wines that I might actually see discounted would more likely fall into the $10-$50 range.

Can't pick. It is a ratio. The P depends upon the Q. So the P floats accordingly.

I've had what I consider good QPR from $5 to over $100. All depended upon the wine and what I felt I was getting for my money.

If you asked the question in a different way---but then it would be a different question entirely---about what I would feel comfortable paying for a bottle of wine...then I'd say about $20. Beyond that I'd have to think about it before purchase. Below that, and I'd be pretty cavalier about picking up something that looked good in a bargain bin or closeout cart.

I once purchased a Meursault for $20 that was spectacular. I once purchased a Chateau Margaux for $5 that was a waste of $5 (and no, it wasn't corked; it was Margaux from that execrable period before the Menztelopoulos family purchased and revived the property).

[David M. Bueker]

It depends on the wine. I would quickly pay $100 for a 2001 d'Yquem.

Error - unrealistic. Does not compute.

[Robin Garr]

I think the issue here, David, is that there is less than 100 percent agreement among wine geeks as to what QPR connotes.

Some interpret it literally, the mathematical ratio between quality and price. If a wine offers unusual value for its price, it lies north of the straight-line ratio on the X:Y axis, regardless of the price. Under this line of thinking, d'Yquem does offer good QPR, and no one should laugh at Jim for saying so.

But for many wine geeks, it seems to me that QPR carries a distinct connotation - wines of relatively low price that taste better than they drink, thus offering the appearance of quality for an exceptional value. It applies to great cheap wines but not to great pricey wines, even those that are more than competitive at their price point. Place yourself in this camp and you have no difficulty answering your poll, which may show a difference among us as to the dollar point at which "QPR" is no longer appropriate because the wine is too expensive.

I understand the fundamentalist interpretation, but my instincts fall into the second category. When a wine is of good value but exceeds $20 - Laurel Glen Sonoma Mountain Cab, say - I may buy it with the pleasurable sense that I'm getting a good buy, but I don't think of it as "QPR." Others may vary, and that's okay. It's not a rule.

[David M. Bueker]

I think the issue here, David, is that there is less than 100 percent agreement among wine geeks as to what QPR connotes.

Exactly!! I am not hoping for some statistically valid result (do I look like Nathan V? ), but rather an interesting cross-section of peoples' opinions on the matter with a fun little poll to boot.

Under this line of thinking, d'Yquem does offer good QPR, and no one should laugh at Tom for saying so.

Or Jim, for that matter. We laugh at Tom for other reasons though.

which may show a difference among us as to the dollar point at which "QPR" is no longer appropriate because the wine is too expensive.

Um, yeah. Thus the problem. A "Plotnicki QPR" and a "Troiano QPR" and a "Roscoe QPR may be entirely different things. Then there's the Filigenzi "Canned Foods Outlet QPR" category too.

Oh, wait, I need to correct myself: a "Roscoe QPR" is more commonly known as OPW.

Well, as some old timers know, I once said that Yquem can have QPR because the Q is off the charts. I also think Ridge MB can have excellent QPR. So, I guess I have no dollar limit for "QPR".

[Robin Garr]

I am not hoping for some statistically valid result (do I look like Nathan V? ), but rather an interesting cross-section of peoples' opinions on the matter with a fun little poll to boot.

Works for me! Polls are fun, as long as we don't mistake them for science.

I guess we use QPR in two different ways.

1. A relatively inexpensive wine that boxes above its weight class.

2. An expensive wine that was just so freaking good that one loses all one's senses and says "yes, I paid $125, but it was worth every penny. A buy at that price." And so freaking good that one would shell out the money again, and gladly.

No vote from me because QPR or Value for Money is a decision that depends in part on one's personality, one's desires, one's pocketbook; one's avarice or, in the best case one's desire.

Would a magnum bottle of 1900 Chateau d'Yquem be too dear or a fine buy at 33,000 pounds sterling?
Is a Van Gogh oil overpriced or fine value at US$ 13,000,000?

No vote from me because QPR or Value for Money is a decision that depends in part on one's personality, one's desires, one's pocketbook; one's avarice or, in the best case one's desire.

In a certain sense I agree. But I also think that the two terms are different. Quality is not the same thing as Value. Value is more subjective and personal. But quality is a bit more objective and after a certain point the difference between expensive wines is less about quality and more about market demand driven by rarity/marketing/etc.

We should also acknowledge that if we're talking about quality, not all regions can deliver the same quality at the same price. So there is overall QPR and then regional QPR.

So there is overall QPR and then regional QPR.

So QPR has terroir?

I was thinking along the same line as others and read all the comments and then went ahead and voted for $20. A more expensive wine can still be a good value and I might even refer to it in my comments as a good QPR but normally I think of QPR as being a relatively inexpensive wine that is seriously good--that exceeds expectations. Stretching that, I might find a village Burgundy that drinks like a premier cru a good QPR even if I paid about $40 for it several years ago.

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.

That said, I'll say that if I was going to entitle a TN " Good QPR Wine" it would probably be under $20.

Oh, wait, I need to correct myself: a "Roscoe QPR" is more commonly known as OPW.

And an OPW is a good QPR.
From a personal point if view, most of the wines I drink are ones I make. It costs me between $0.65 and $4.00 per bottle to make, with the exception of the 2010 CF/Merlot blend, which will end up costing over $6.00/bottle because it's now aging in a new barrel. I find most of my wines more enjoyable than almost all wines less than $15/bottle, so I seldom buy wines that are less than $20 or over $40, but have been gifted a few more expensive ones.

We consider wine to be a commodity to have with wine. Good wine with good food, which is why I hang around here. Even if we hit the lottery, we wouldn't want to spend more than $25 for a wine unless it was a very special occasion. That is why I voted for the $20 QPR.

[David M. Bueker]

We consider wine to be a commodity to have with wine.

I'm all for that!

We consider wine to be a commodity to have with wine.

I'm all for that!

LOL.. indeed...

We consider wine to be a commodity to have with wine. Good wine with good food, which is why I hang around here. Even if we hit the lottery, we wouldn't want to spend more than $25 for a wine unless it was a very special occasion. That is why I voted for the $20 QPR.

What does this have to do with price? You're saying that wines that cost over $25 don't go well with food?

What does this have to do with price? You're saying that wines that cost over $25 don't go well with food?

Not at all, though many don't. I just thing it is too much to spend on a dinner drink unless it's a special occasion as I said.

I just thing it is too much to spend on a dinner drink unless it's a special occasion as I said.

I guess I sort of see what you're saying. Although it all depends what you mean by 'special occasion'. For me, every weekend is a special occasion, it's when I open the wine!

And I know that we all have our price ceilings above which we are reluctant to go. I'm just have a hard time seeing why this category of 'dinner drink' is so relevant for being the factor that limits your budget. As opposed to aperitif wine, or postprandial sipping? Unless you view dinner (food) in general as something not worth spending a lot of money on?

For me, every weekend is a special occasion, it's when I open the wine!

Binge drinker, huh?

For me, every weekend is a special occasion, it's when I open the wine!

Binge drinker, huh?

Hey, I could have just as easily said that every meal is a special occasion, it's when I eat food!