Iām largely in agreement, yet thereās considerable enjoyment pursuing, acquiring, owning, showing off, sharing and enjoying trophy wines. If you break it down to the pure quality of the wines themselves, ignoring inherent variationsā¦and perhaps more importantly, your ability to discern the relative qualitiesā¦I believe most trophy wines offer poor QPR, relative to peers and competitors that continue to raise their gameā¦in every wine region.
Totally agree, Richard. Maybe itās just my age, or that the ātrophyā aspect (whether rarity, points, or hype) has never been that important to me. Iām just interested in delicious wines that my wife and I (and hopefully my friends, when possible) enjoy drinking.
Just to be clear, the opinions expressed above are not mutually exclusive. I have quite a bit of Loire Cab Franc in my storage that was $20 and under, like Baudry Les Grange, Domaine Guion, Fosse-Seche and evening Raffault Les Picasses (2007, 09 at that price). Itās all good!
From a pure QPR perspective this is true. However, if the perfect QPR wine is $25, while returns from every dollar spent above that are inefficient, I donāt think people will limit themselves to $25 wines. I donāt feel like I win if I get the correct QPR. I would rather get a great bottle of wine. And yes, that often means itās more expensive. And yes, that also means Iāll sometimes open a bottle and be disappointed. But Iād be disappointed at a bad bottle no matter the cost.
I think looking at wine solely from a QPR perspective misses the point. This is my hobby, not my job. My goal is not to maximize returns on my wine purchases, itās to buy good wine and drink it with my friends. And yes, sometimes part of that fun is opening a really cool bottle of wine thatās really good, even if itās bad QPR. Obviously Iām constrained by finances (queue the dril tweet about my family starving), as we all are, but within that constraint Iāll gladly pay for wine I really like thatās suboptimal QPR.
Each person should indulge themselves in wine in the way that they enjoy most!
My post was in somewhat in response to an earlier one asking if it mattered what board members used to pay for trophy wines. For me, I miss Rousseau, and would definitely hunt the GCs if they were in the hundreds instead of the thousands.
Mostly, I like to see wines evolve and change, and I have too many favorites. So buying 6 bottles of a $300 wine, isnāt realistic as it would cut out too many other producers that I really like.
Absolutely. And I have a couple of bottles of Lassaigne that were $160 and $185, along with a reasonable selection of $70-$180 Burgundy. And Rougeard is the trophy wine I spend the most time contemplating every time I deliver to Vinopolis.
There is no standard $ definition for āQPR wineā. I use it in the context of quality increasing commensurate with price. At a certain point (be it $25, $250, or $2500) I find that the slope of the line changes and goes asymptotic, with respect to the quality of the wine itselfā¦and more importantly, my ability to perceive the incremental changes in that quality.
Do I enjoy drinking a $2500 bottle more than a $25? Hell ya. Itās a $2500 bottle!
But if asked whether I can reliably distinguish the quality differences between a $250 and $2500 wine (just picking those numbers in general to make a point) when tasted blind, Iām significantly less certain of the answer.
So Iām really perplexed by this discussion, and the lack of mention about the new ownership?? Do we really believe that the Bouygues Family (who own Montrose) bought Clos Rougeard to turn it in to something NOT special?
Why do billionaires buy wineries? And if it becomes ānot specialā do they care as much as a hands-on vigneron/winemaker who built the business from the ground up?
Thatās obviously true, especially given bottle variation. The more money you spend on wine, the worst your return. Thatās true with almost anything beyond the āideal QPR pointā, which Iām perfectly willing to agree is probably somewhere around $25. A $50 isnāt twice as good as a $25 wine, and that slope, as you said, goes asymptotic. My argument is that itās not the point. Wine is about experience and joy and intellectual discovery to me, not the search for the perfectly priced bottle. It doesnāt bother me that I almost certainly canāt distinguish the difference between a $250 and $2500 wine. I donāt buy $2500 wines anyway
I get to see close up, that often a wealthy owner desires to have their investment be special to the extent that it becomes generic. The absolute demand is success, and the whole project is spared no expense.
But where every solution is in place preemptively, the vineyard and cellar have a preordained outcome. And the wines often check all of the boxes for impressive, yet fail to be special.
No one can buy time. The relationship and understanding of a vineyard at the level required to make wines unique to the vineyard can ONLY be acquired through the investment of time. Generalizations of āthe best practiceā in viticulture and cellar are helpful knowledge. But every vineyard, vintage, even ferment has itās own quirks, and nothing can replace the relationship gained through years of direct experience.
That may sound a bit over the top, but my post is directly related to wineries with extraordinary productions. And in the case of Rougeard, a winery setting the bar for special(according to price point). These special wineries are wineries performing at a level far beyond average. And doing so requires a site and talent that goes beyond the ābest practicesā every one else is utilizing. Just like a championship caliber NBA player, everything has to be better and often the difference maker is the understanding of the finest of nuances in the game.
Not to say that a new owner canāt operate a special place as a special place(see Evesham Wood, though Erin Nuccio replaced Russ as a vigneron and an owner). Rather that just because someone wants to keep something special doesnāt mean they can, and often by trying to force it, they achieve the opposite.
QPR is a ratio so I donāt think it can be any specific number. And itās a very subjective measurement.
But your comment to wine being a hobby is spot on. I buy a reasonable amount of Burgundy that, IMO, isnāt a real QPR purchase at all. But I really enjoy the region and am happy to pay more for it, even if there is better value elsewhere.
And for me, often the most expensive red Burgundies that I buy are the best QPR, as they are the ones that deliver a singular over the top experience.
More likely because it already is a trophy. And the ego that led them to buy it for that reason will lead them to care that it remains a trophy, possibly, in answer to Marcus, to care every bit as much as a vigneron who owned the property. The problem is that they are dependent on the tastes and abilities of the winemaker they hire, regardless of their motives, so there is always a good chance that the wine will change. This is true, though, anytime a property changes hands, even if only generationally. So the answer to Ianās question is not that the problem is that the property has been sold but rather that the winemaker has changed, which is always a dangerous thing.
