Wines that are value for money in the minds of drinkers perhaps depends on how much money they have to spend on them. The definition by a pensioner may be markedly different to that of a billionaire.
There is, though, one thing I have learned from 50 years drinking, selling and writing about wine. As the price of a wine goes up by large amounts, the quality improves by only small amounts. And that rule does not change however much money you’ve got. It’s as if wine was made to justify the law of diminishing returns.
People can get more than a bit precious when they try and evaluate wines. Is this a 92 or a 94 and if so what’s the reason for the difference? Ask the same questions the next week and that 92 is just as likely elevated to a 95 with the 94 sacked to a mere 89. It’s all a bit of a nonsense really as countless academic studies of wine ratings in shows around the world have proved.
I gave up trying to make fine distinctions years ago. Mine is a much more broad brush approach to assessments that starts with the recognition that wine is just a drink. And a drink that people really consume for no reason other than its alcohol however lyrical they might wax about this or that taste on the back palate.
My belief is there’s a time, place and circumstance which can make almost all wine acceptable if there is no alternative. A hot day and plenty of ice and the humblest cask becomes an acceptable refreshment; better the crisp beauty of a Clare riesling but beggars sometimes cannot be choosers.
Developing a New Scoring System
For some years I’ve been thinking about developing a value for money rating that would be more relevant to most wine drinkers than those ponts out of 100 that bear no relation to what the wine costs. It will help me act, rather than just think, to know what is the maximum price that others think represents value for money.
Hence this simple survey. I will be grateful if you take part.
