Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

For the casual wine drinker it makes perfect sense to start at the lowest price point and move up only to the point at which the wine is palatable. Why pay more, when the product can be replaced by beer, hard liquor, or even soft drinks.

But the same argument can be used on almost any product. Can the neophyte really tell the difference between a BMW and a Buick if the test is blind?

I drink wine because I like the entire experience, including climbing the learning curve. And I really don’t care that I can be fooled by a blind tasting. I know what I like, and if it costs $10? Great? And if it costs $50? Not so great.

A large portion of this seems to be the not-so-surprising the unsophisticated (in a completely descriptive sense) people have unsophisticated tastes.  It’s true in music, TV, beer, french fries, hamburgers, chocolate, and many other things so it’s not so surprising here, either.  But of course it doesn’t mean that there’s no difference or that there might not be good reason to develop sophisticated tastes, at least in some circumstances.

I agree with the earlier post. For non or occasional wine drinker, it is very hard to distinguish the difference between a $10 a bottle of vine vs $30. I think it is all about the experience, affordability and personal taste.

I consider myself a wine enthusiast (learned from my mother).  Neither of these studies address the phenomenon of excellent, inexpensive wines.  Being ahead of the curve is where I find my own validation in the wine world.  I remember picking up bottles of Pepperwood grove for under four dollars and Rombauer Carneros Chardonnay for under fifteen.  Developing your palate, and tasting for youself, can lead to the enjoyment of fine wines for little money (even if the good ones don’t stay cheap forever).

Most of these analyses approach wine buying as if it is a choice between one rational and one irrational choice, and we need to figure out which one is which: namely, whether 1) it is rational to pay a lot of money for expensive wine and therefore irrational to just buy cheap, bad stuff, or 2) it is rational to just buy cheap stuff (because it is just as good) and therefore irrational to pay more than bargain prices for wine. 

Quite the contrary, it is not such a mutually-exclusive dichotomy.  It is rational to both pay attention to price as a relevant factor AND it is rational to pay a premium for great wine.  In other words, we face a choice between two rational options, and the inquiry focuses instead upon each person deciding which of these two rational choices fits his or her tastes and preferences best. 

Moreover, the “better” answer might differ even within an individual’s tastes and preferences, whereby a blend of bargain and premium purchases might best suit a particular individual’s tastes and preferences.  Phrasing it as a false dichotomy makes it seem like there is only one correct option (all bargain or all premium) not only for everyone, but also for each individual person.

Finally, in response to some of the comments, $50 is NOT expensive wine, and it is not just a choice between “bargain” and “premium.” (Perhaps it might seem so to a law student, but not after you “emerge from the cocoon,” so to speak).  There are at least three economic tiers to consider: bargain ($5-$20), mid-range (the vast majority of wines from $20-$200), and premium “collector” wines ($200-$10,000+).  You could/should also even parse the mid-range into two groups: “table wines” ($20-$60) and “special occasion wines” ($60-$200 wines).

My take: bargain wines are often worth the savings and sometimes do surpass more expensive wines.  More expensive wines are not infallible, either, and the emperor often is not wearing any clothes when claiming to enjoy them.  However, bargain wines are not nearly as reliably consistent and you should not be surprised if you get a “dud” bottle within an otherwise decent vintage.  Bargain wines also do not age well, so purchase them to drink right now instead of storing them.  When purchasing wines to keep in a cellar or even a small wine cabinet collection, you need to elevate to the “table wine” or “special occasion” economic categories.  You might find some rare exceptions, but they are so rare that they are not worth going to the expense or trouble of having a collection, to begin with.

Wine pricing has far more to do with marketing than anything else, it is maintained on the basis supply and demand. Quality has proven to be less of an influence on demand than one would logically expect. At the luxury end of the market, demand is influenced by 200 year old classifications, appellations, personalities, winery hospitality, public relations, critic’s scores, events, waiting lists to get on mailing lists, allocations, and image. Without these a wine cannot be sold in the luxury tier irrespective of quality. For a certain buyer, there is even reverse elasticity to price in demand where the higher the price the greater the demand. Wine does have to be of a certain basic quality level to compete in this tier, but beyond that, it is marketing. Here advertising, packaging, in-market promotions, sales force numbers, distribution strength, and retailer support impact price. Lower tiers are just as influenced by marketing, but it may not be quite as necessary to have the same basic level of quality as in the luxury end.  This is why among experienced wine professionals you can find a slight statistical correlation of price to quality in their preferences. One thing we all know, there are thousands of wines in the lower tiers that could easily compete on the basis of quality in the highest tier of the market. All they need are a few of the other qualifications that tier of the market demands.