Blake Gray to Asimov: What does "value" really mean in wine?

[Robin Garr]

This sounds a bit like conversations that have gone on in WLDG for 20 years, but Gray is a good writer, and raises questions worth talking about again.

How would you answer his final question? "What does 'value' in wine mean to you? And is there an upper limit to how expensive a wine can be and still be a 'value?'"

http://blog.wblakegray.com/2016/03/what ... o-you.html

[Robin Garr]

I think Tom Troiano established the benchmark for this question many years ago when he famously asserted that Chateau d'Yquem can be considered a "value" wine because it stands far above its own competition at its (lofty) price point.

I can buy that argument, too. But for me, based on my own wine-buying practices, I still tend to think of QPR as wines in the everyday price range that stand out for quality that's significantly better than most wines at that price point. And the higher that price point, the less practical interest the wine has for me, so the value question becomes academic.

[David M. Bueker]

The idea of a top price point for value made perfect sense to me until I tried the de Vogue Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru. It's 100% young vines Musigny, and 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the big boy. It is generally an amazing wine that gives a Musigny experience at very-extra-special bottle pricing versus stratospheric.

I think to be considered a "value" for me, a wine would have to be priced under $100. I could see a Burgundy 1er Cru, a Super Tuscan, an amazing Chablis that provides a really memorable experience being a value wine IMO even if I had to pay $75 or $80. I very occasionally pay over $100 for a bottle of wine and probably consider it worth the price but not a "value."

Hey, you nailed it for me, JC, with this comment:

I very occasionally pay over $100 for a bottle of wine and probably consider it worth the price but not a "value."

Worth the price but not a value: well said and nicely put!

Keying off JC's comment on worth and value...

I think the idea of value----QPR---is more in the realm of affordability and is directed toward a brand that provides a good ratio of quality to price; whereas, worth is focused on individual bottles.

I can say, for instance, that Esporao wines from Portugal are generally good QPR, in that they are reliable and consistent in providing wines at several different price levels.

When it comes to Burgundy (just as a good for instance), I pretty much expect each bottle to be an adventure, and don't expect as much consistency. And at that point, although a particular wine might be splendid, it also might not be. Given the price, that constitutes a significantly greater gamble on my part.

For Esporao, I'd feel confident at punting for $10, and if I suffered an occasional letdown on an individual bottle, meh. For a Vogue Chambolle-Musigny at $160 a bottle, I'd be devastated if it were not satisfactory----first, because I know how good it could/should be, and second, because I'm out not only that splendid experience, but I'm also out the 16 bottles of Esporao I could have enjoyed with the money I wasted.

So QPR is also a gambling decision as well.

Didn’t read the article yet, but will do when I get home. (Thanks for posting Robin and just to expand on what you said) The value of a wine is usually assessed by an individual when he or she compares the wine to previous experiences, or wines he or she accustomed too. That IMHO is a “true value assessment” of a wine. One can also “formulate” a perception about a given wine and attempted to make a value assessment of it.

Salute

The idea of a top price point for value made perfect sense to me until I tried the de Vogue Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru. It's 100% young vines Musigny, and 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the big boy. It is generally an amazing wine that gives a Musigny experience at very-extra-special bottle pricing versus stratospheric.

Yes, I don't think there should be a top price point for value, because it's all relative and subjective based on the consumer's perspective and means.

[Jenise]

The idea of a top price point for value made perfect sense to me until I tried the de Vogue Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru. It's 100% young vines Musigny, and 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the big boy. It is generally an amazing wine that gives a Musigny experience at very-extra-special bottle pricing versus stratospheric.

EXACTLY. To me value makes no sense without a comparison. Tom Troiano's reasoning for Y'Quem doesn't resonate with me at all. It's tops in it's field and the price shows it. However, the superb Climens (actually, my favorite of all Sauternes, even Y'Quem) at any price is a good value by comparison.