I will disagree with a caveat. Basically yes there is a difference between wines, and it’s not BS.
There is a world of a difference between a $5 and a $500 wine. But there isn’t a world of a difference between a $5 and a $30 wine, nor is there a world of difference between a $500 and a $1000. It’s about a class structure of the product as with so many things. There’s cheap and simple and there’s more sophisticated and expensive. But once you’re comparing within the same class, it’s really just a matter of varying subtleties. There’s certain distinctions that are absolutely distinguishable such as dry, sweet etc. and there are undertones. This stuff is absolutely real so if someone says it’s all nonsense that someone has not really had the experience needed to make that kind of judgment.
I drink between $5 and $500 bottles, and while I will agree there is a distinct difference at the higher end, it doesn’t mean the $500 bottle will be better than a $20 bottle to the person drinking it. I humor the people that care about the price, but distinct notes of so-so music doesn’t spin my wheels.
Yeah, no it’s all a question of the person’s relationship with wine, as with other things. If you are perfectly fine with a cheap wine then yeah, plenty of them are delicious. But a connoisseur can and will appreciate what a $500 wine offers them, and it’s not qualities you can find in any $5 bottle.
Like with many things, if you appreciate the higher-end selections among them, then you’re getting something you can’t at the low end. The question is, even with those qualities, is it really worth $500? And that’s just a matter of economics.
When my son was born I got a $100 bottle of Glenlivet 18 year French Oak Finish. That’s a rather sophisticated single malt; by no means is it the best because I know people who have bourbon or scotch that costs like 5x that. However, you will not anywhere or anytime find a cheap scotch that even comes close to that Glenlivet. It was some of the smoothest and most delicious single malt I’ve ever had. Lasted me nearly a year.
Sigh. Due to a medical condition I don’t consume alcohol anymore, and haven’t for a long time. But goddamn do I miss good scotch, bourbon, beer… sigh.
Oh god, right there with you on scotch, all whiskeys (and whiskys) in fact. But wine can be hit or miss, even at the high dollars. Years ago I found an amazing cabernet with a full body and heavy chocolate notes for $2.12, and dank it for a year. But I agree that as you get up to $20-100, the likelihood of something terrible is less, and over $90 very rare.
I’ll have a glass of something with Glen in the title in your honor tonight.
If you’re reading this and curious about wine, a couple of things.
1 - Drink what you like. If you want red wine with fish, fine. The people who care, care more about rules than enjoyment.
2 - Drink what you like. I opened a $500 red for my dad’s birthday, it was so-so to my palate. I love $12 NW pinot noirs. Don’t fixate on a price.
3 - When you find something you like, take the bottle to a wine store and ask for a description of the notes of that wine. Ask them to suggest similar wines, and learn to pick out the notes that matter to you. People who don’t know wine talk price, but your sommelier really wants to hear “I’d like something full-bodied, no acid, heavy tannins, smooth finish with some fruit notes.”
4 - Your waiter is rarely a sommelier and just wants a region and type of wine. West Coast pinot noir generally makes a table happy.
I agree about the wine; I was just going on like the broadest scenarios because of course when it comes down to it, there’s nothing objective about it. And I agree with the pairing if I see someone bring up the issue of this wine with that protein I take pity on someone who is so stuck to these absurd notions they don’t know what enjoyment actually is.
I will disagree with a caveat. Basically yes there is a difference between wines, and it’s not BS.
There is a world of a difference between a $5 and a $500 wine. But there isn’t a world of a difference between a $5 and a $30 wine, nor is there a world of difference between a $500 and a $1000. It’s about a class structure of the product as with so many things. There’s cheap and simple and there’s more sophisticated and expensive. But once you’re comparing within the same class, it’s really just a matter of varying subtleties. There’s certain distinctions that are absolutely distinguishable such as dry, sweet etc. and there are undertones. This stuff is absolutely real so if someone says it’s all nonsense that someone has not really had the experience needed to make that kind of judgment.
I drink between $5 and $500 bottles, and while I will agree there is a distinct difference at the higher end, it doesn’t mean the $500 bottle will be better than a $20 bottle to the person drinking it. I humor the people that care about the price, but distinct notes of so-so music doesn’t spin my wheels.
Yeah, no it’s all a question of the person’s relationship with wine, as with other things. If you are perfectly fine with a cheap wine then yeah, plenty of them are delicious. But a connoisseur can and will appreciate what a $500 wine offers them, and it’s not qualities you can find in any $5 bottle.
Like with many things, if you appreciate the higher-end selections among them, then you’re getting something you can’t at the low end. The question is, even with those qualities, is it really worth $500? And that’s just a matter of economics.
When my son was born I got a $100 bottle of Glenlivet 18 year French Oak Finish. That’s a rather sophisticated single malt; by no means is it the best because I know people who have bourbon or scotch that costs like 5x that. However, you will not anywhere or anytime find a cheap scotch that even comes close to that Glenlivet. It was some of the smoothest and most delicious single malt I’ve ever had. Lasted me nearly a year.
Sigh. Due to a medical condition I don’t consume alcohol anymore, and haven’t for a long time. But goddamn do I miss good scotch, bourbon, beer… sigh.
Oh god, right there with you on scotch, all whiskeys (and whiskys) in fact. But wine can be hit or miss, even at the high dollars. Years ago I found an amazing cabernet with a full body and heavy chocolate notes for $2.12, and dank it for a year. But I agree that as you get up to $20-100, the likelihood of something terrible is less, and over $90 very rare.
I’ll have a glass of something with Glen in the title in your honor tonight.
If you’re reading this and curious about wine, a couple of things.
1 - Drink what you like. If you want red wine with fish, fine. The people who care, care more about rules than enjoyment.
2 - Drink what you like. I opened a $500 red for my dad’s birthday, it was so-so to my palate. I love $12 NW pinot noirs. Don’t fixate on a price.
3 - When you find something you like, take the bottle to a wine store and ask for a description of the notes of that wine. Ask them to suggest similar wines, and learn to pick out the notes that matter to you. People who don’t know wine talk price, but your sommelier really wants to hear “I’d like something full-bodied, no acid, heavy tannins, smooth finish with some fruit notes.”
4 - Your waiter is rarely a sommelier and just wants a region and type of wine. West Coast pinot noir generally makes a table happy.
Awesome.
I agree about the wine; I was just going on like the broadest scenarios because of course when it comes down to it, there’s nothing objective about it. And I agree with the pairing if I see someone bring up the issue of this wine with that protein I take pity on someone who is so stuck to these absurd notions they don’t know what enjoyment actually is.
Hah, it turned out it was 15 year Glenfiddich 25 years ago. So Cheers!
👍🥂
Also very cheap wine seems to give worse hangovers. I’m guessing due to lower quality ingredients, less filtration, and less aging.