The Auswine Forum

Here's a bit more detailed story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7187577.stm?lsm

I especially enjoyed reading some of the comments, like e.g."I generally buy wine based on the attractiveness of the label and also provided it is within an acceptable pricing band and type I am looking for. However, it is still very much pot luck..."

And the research paper itself here if you want to take a look.

Its a marketing concept thats been around for years.
The discounters did a fantastic job of gutting brands

Yes, you are a bit slow. I think you mean...

We're all a bit slow.

not where.

I was just..ahh...testing you win.

If wine were all about getting the best possible drink for the least possible price, I think I'd give up the hobby. Whilst it's great to get a bargain, there is a perverse thrill from supping from an expensive bottle even if it's still a touch underwhelming. Maybe I just get my kicks in weird ways though... Three cheers for label supping.

I felt that way when I tried the 2002 Grange. Whilst drinking it and comparing it to other wines it didn't impress as I thought a Grange would. When in the car driving home I reflected on the tasting and thought about tasting the Grange. It was the idea of tasting Grange rather than the wine itself. If it didn't have a Grange label I wouldn't of even given it a second thought.
It has to be about what's in the bottle rather than the label.
To me the thrill can be found in finding a $25 bottle (Grant Burge Filsell for example) and realising that this bottle can kill some wines double the price.

Cheers,
Dr - 307.

I agree with that too, nothing like our memorable Grange vs Jacobs Creek Limited Release 02 tasting last year to make you reflect on that aspect of things. Nothing like a bargain.

As a collector though, it HAS to be much more than just acquiring the best possible wine for the least possible price - there are loads of things that come into play, like brand loyalty (is there a wine marketer in the house?), collecting verticals, horizontals, or just plain collecting/amassing. In a sense, I think wine collecting is no different on some levels to say, cars, stamp or coin collecting or even Tazos, it just comes with the flipside of drinking it which may carry more or less value for some than others. There are wine collectors out there who amass cellars and don't actually drink. Weird I know but they exist. There are of course, also drinkers who collect wine that don't drink (selected wines) because the occasion is never worthy enough. Bah humbug.

The dark side of the argument (and the less fruitful aspect) is that of buying (expensive) wine because someone else says it's good and then being disappointed. Whilst I'm sure we're all guilty of this at times, to varying degrees, I think there's a difference between being a genuine collector/enthusiast and a label suck. But then again, and further to my previous point, sometimes there is a small buzz about opening a bottle of considerable expense or reputation regardless of the perceived quality. I stress a small buzz.

I hereby clarify/refine my previous post and confirm it did brandish a touch of sarcasm...!

Given the 'thrill' that consumers experience from knowing that they are drinking an expensive bottle of wine, and taking Wayno's comments in to account, from now on I intend to serve all my dinner party wines in brown paper bags, and tell eveyone that they range in price from $50 to $137. A good night, guaranteed.

My opinion upon the small thrill received when opening an expensive wine is that it needs to be placed in context:

A small thrill = opening an expensive wine with the expectation that the contents will be satisfactory

A big thrill = opening a wine and the contents exceed one's expectation

A small disappointment = opening a less expensive wine/dubious auction purchase and the contents fail to satisfy

A big disappointment = opening an expensive wine (with a small thrill no less) and the contents fail to satisfy

This wine thing is an emotional roller-coaster

cheers

Carl

griff wrote:A big thrill = opening a wine and the contents exceed one's expectation

A big disappointment = opening an expensive wine (with a small thrill no less) and the contents fail to satisfy

You can avoid the big disappointments but retain the chance of big thrills then if you simply don't buy expensive wine!

For most people, I suspect, an excellent sub $40 bottle, such as Pirathon or Te Mata Awatea, provides all the wine enjoyment they need. The problem with really expensive wine is that the thrill of having it quickly evaporates if it doesn't taste any "better" than your usual favourite drop. It might do, but its a risk I'm rarely willing to take - unless its not my money! (I did buy some Rockford BP recently, but that's about the limit to my thrill-seeking I think )

The simple rule I follow (or at least follow 90% of the time) is try before I buy for the collection. And not just in store tasting but buying a bottle and having it at home over 3 days. I've drunk bottles that have impressed at home but then failed to impress me at in store tastings so I feel drinking a bottle at my leisure is far different to 10ml at a store or cellar door. I use experts to steer / alert me to 'possibly' good bottles but let my palate make the buying decision.
For me the thrill is in -
1. Drinking a great bottle no matter what the price.
2. Having friends comment on how much they love the wine I've picked.
3. Most of all and the reason why I started collecting and enjoying wine......Great friends, great food and of course great wine.

Cheers,
Dr - 307.

Given some of these prices:

http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/20080116_1

I would suggest that there are some very 'thrilled' wine collectors out there.

Wayno, your commments as a 'collecotr' are well made, but I was thinking - If I was a 'collector' of cars, I would want the best car (best = subjective 'beauty', performance, accessiblity, curio factor etc) at the lowest possible price. In fact, the more I paid, possibly the less I would enjoy it as I would always be worried about some goose running in to it or whatever.

As a wine enthusiast (with limited budget) do I want try Petrus? Youbetcha! Would I ever pay for a bottle? Umm, no. And if I did, how could I do anything but like the wine (or say I liked the wine), having shelled out such a huge wad for it. The Grange v JC tasting proved that - those of us who said they didn't particulalry enjoy the Grange (of which I was one) felt compelled to offer a disclaimer after the fact once the covers came off.

Now, back to the 'Butter' thread in the Food section for me.

Dr - 307 wrote:The simple rule I follow (or at least follow 90% of the time) is try before I buy for the collection. And not just in store tasting but buying a bottle and having it at home over 3 days. I've drunk bottles that have impressed at home but then failed to impress me at in store tastings so I feel drinking a bottle at my leisure is far different to 10ml at a store or cellar door. I use experts to steer / alert me to 'possibly' good bottles but let my palate make the buying decision.
For me the thrill is in -
1. Drinking a great bottle no matter what the price.
2. Having friends comment on how much they love the wine I've picked.
3. Most of all and the reason why I started collecting and enjoying wine......Great friends, great food and of course great wine.

Cheers,
Dr - 307.

Agree wholeheartedly to the second two points. I think I agree with the first. I'm sure my partner thinks I agree with the first Yet any wine over $100, I have fairly high expectations. Is that fair on the wine? I don't know.

cheers

Carl

I have learnt that the quality of wine tends to flatten out and get into 'diminishing returns' territory pretty dang quickly after $50.

Consistent tasting sessions where bottles have hit the 50 mark and upwards have seen most tasters I've seen agree pretty unanimously that the best overall wine has been the one around the 50 mark. This seems a bit of a magic number too as there are a number of premium wines that sell for this figure. Often the lesser prices have done well too but whilst the Granges of the world might well be better than the Stonewells and the Lawsons and so on, they're not five times as good. (Having said that, the Grange might last longer in a cellar).

I can still justify spending $50 on a bottle these days but tend to shy away from anything too much higher these days as I don't think anything else is worthwhile, fabulous label/reputation/hype or not. Some would argue that 50 is too much for a bottle anyway and I probably agree but my 'collectors neurosis' for want of a better term, still works very functionally up to that point.

El Josho, as for your comment about car collecting, I'm not entirely sure I agree with you. Not being a collector of cars, it's hard to comment but I doubt too many collectors concern themselves about bargain finds? If I collect stamps, by way of another example (and I don't by the way) then I'm looking to collect sets or things of interest or themes etc. I doubt price comes into it. Price seems to rarely come into it when you hear tales about obsessed collectors who, evidently, have spent "thousands" of dollars over the years on a hobby or pursuit that to much of the population seems pointless and unneccessary. I think most of the population would think that about many wine collectors. Non-wine heads look at my cellar and shake their heads in disbelief and think I am a bit daft, I suspect.

Perhaps they're right.

El Josho wrote: The Grange v JC tasting proved that - those of us who said they didn't particulalry enjoy the Grange (of which I was one) felt compelled to offer a disclaimer after the fact once the covers came off.

Don't lie, you loved it.

Like many products in the modern world the quality/price relationship for wine appears to be somewhat exponential. This means that the higher the price the less the increment in "quality" from the next price step down.

For me, the qpr curve for wine mostly stops at about $50, I don't see a 10 times quality increment in a $500 wine, or even a 2 times quality increment in a $100 wine in many cases.

Like most products, but maybe even more so for wine as personal palate preferences are so paramount, different people have different sweet spots on the qpr curve.

The standard exemplars are audio gear and cars, but I think wine is right up there.

Glad to see I'm not completley losing the plot and most people have teh same opinion as me!!!

i.e. Whilst you might be able to easily spot (taste) the difference between something that you paid $10 - $15 for, and something you paid $50 - $75 for. The differential betwen that same $50 - $75 bottle when compared to a $150 and up bottle becamose very small.

For me, picking up a $15 - $40 bottle that is punching above it's weight is the thrill. I expect that the Saltram No 1, Basket Press and RWT will be good. But when I find something like Ben Glaetzer's Bishop, Lazy Ballerina or alike, that's when I get excted about wine!

But when I find something like Ben Glaetzer's Bishop, Lazy Ballerina or alike, that's when I get excted about wine!

Don't get me started on Ben's Bishop. The first time I had that was the 2005 vintage. Holy moly. I keep wanting to dip into my stocks to have one but force myself to try and spread out the experience over a (longer ) period of time.

picking up a $15 - $40 bottle that is punching above it's weight is the thrill

Exactly!