re: Piling on Wine - Is Wine bullshite? (link)

quote:

---

I wonder if this is the old labor theory of value -- organic requires a lot more time and effort, so it must be superior. See also craft beer.

---

Oh, there's plenty of shitty craft beer out there. And there's plenty of expensive craft beer that is not nearly as good as some less expensive ones.

quote:

---

Oh, there's plenty of shitty craft beer out there. And there's plenty of expensive craft beer that is not nearly as good as some less expensive ones

---

Yes, but some of what is considered to the best craft beer in the world is very reasonably priced (RE: Heady Topper, Pliny The Elder, Zombie Dust, Founders Breakfast Stout, etc.). Can the same be said for wine?

Also, more expensive beers are usually justified in their cost because of the extra time and effort required to execute the style (e.g. barrel-aged beers or sours). You may see someone charging $25 for 750ml for a bomber of a an imported lambic, but you'll get scoffed at for trying to charge that much for an IPA. As a whole, I find beer to be very appropriately priced. Of course, there are some aberrations.

5 years, but I've been to bars with vintage lists that include beers over a decade old.

quote:

---

Space demands to hold wine for decades.

---

What do you mean by this?

Is age the reason for large discrepancies in pricing for wines of the same style?

quote:

---

Is age the reason for large discrepancies in pricing for wines of the same style?

---

Largely. I'm not talking $15-$40, but major price discrepancies $100-over $1000

quote:

---

Space demands to hold wine for decades

---

I mean, it takes a great deal of space, usually airconditioned, to keep large quantities of reserve wine. This plus insurance costs plenty of money. This has to be factored into the cost. 5 year old beer is old for beer but it's nothing in wine age.

I'm not knocking beer, it's just not comporable.

quote:

---

So a wine that is only a year or two old can't be considered world-class?

---

No. You won't drink any world class wine in that time frame. Most great wine was created to be held over time as the wine evolves in the bottle. It is then tried over time and they predict the prime time for drinking. They have good 2 year old wine but not world class.

quote:

---

So a wine that is only a year or two old can't be considered world-class?

---

It can be considered world class. It's just not ready to drink. There's a difference between the two ideas. I buy lots of world class wines that are two years old. I lay them down in one of my wine fridges for a future date. I tend to drink wines (reds) somewhere during the 4 to 8 year old window, but that's a personal preference.

A lot more than age of a wine factors in, primarily aging potential. This involves a lot of factors: location of property is number one, requiring depth of soil and ability to produce wines of this caliber. Secondly, the cost of prime vineyard management and a top caliber winemaker. Thirdly cost of product especially new oak usage (French oak is outrageous). A first growth Bordeaux on a great vintage that can age 50+ years is not a $60 napa cab drank within 8-10 years. It's hard to explain without actually experiencing. Taste a chateau latour 1945 and see the vibrancy left in the wine and you'll realize this is almost other worldly.