I guess QPR is relative, per eRP

WINE TALK
1

I clicked on the “Top 50 QPR wines” list on eRP, never having noticed the link before, and expected to see a list of decent quality wines at or around $20-$25. That’s my definition of QPR, wines I don’t have to think twice about if I want to open them on a whim. That’s not what I found on the list. The list is populated with most wines north of $50, with many of them exceeding $100. I thought “WTF?”. Then I read the notation on the bottom of the list. Apparently a $100 2009 1er cru Burg can be a QPR when compared to the universe of 2009 1er cru Burgs and a $200 2010 Bordeaux can be a QPR when compared to the universe of 2010 Bordeaux.

Am I wrong in my interpretation of QPR, or is the list on eRP a bit of a stretch?

2

Makes sense to me.

3

From the perspective of the rest of the wine drinking world, what we spend on a bottle of wine that we consider ‘cheap’, a la $20, is a fortune.

4

At its most basic, isn’t QPR just the ratio between quality and price? So something with a quality higher than what you’d normally see a wine of that quality going for is high QPR, and vice versa. If something is priced exactly as it should be, doesn’t really have a great QPR.

I would think on this interpretation that a wine of any cost could be great QPR so long as it delivers the experience of drinking a typically much more expensive wine.

5

QPR = Quality/Price Ratio. So more expensive wines can qualify, they just need to be of higher quality.

This is different than best cheap wine, or best moderate priced wine.

6

As with many things, I take it quite literally. What is the Quality to Price Ratio? How is your enjoyment/experience of the wine, taking into account what it costs to purchase? To me, there is no price range associated with the term “QPR.” It is a perception of value. Bang for the buck.

7

OK, so I guess my interpretation of QPR is more along the lines of high quality at a cheap price, i.e. under $20.

8

Thats just good cheap wine :wink:

9

My understanding of QPR does not necessarily have a monetary limit.
I could see it used more aptly for wines like Burgundy and Bordeaux where similar located properties could produce a wine that is a relative bargain when compared to its neighbor, be it Lafite, Mouton, Latour or DRC and bottle price of $1000 -$3500 are the norm, not the exception like Screaming Eagle, (or anywhere a stone can be thrown onto that property from).
The $150 Calon Segur is a relative QPR when compared to Chateau Blah Blah Bla, the first growth is abuts itself to. In that context, which is what I think eRP means, I can see it.

Coming back to these shores, I quite often experience fifty dollar cabs that beat some 3x the price, hence it’s a QPR to me.

10

In wine circles, when asked for our favorite QPRs, the answer is generally given at the lower price points, but that’s incorrect use of the term. No way is Quality/Price Ratio fixed to a given price point, or there’s be no reason to express it as a ratio of price. A $10 wine that drinks like a $35 wine has exactly the same QPR as a $100 wine that drinks like a $350 wine. Of course, quality is subjective while price isn’t, which makes exact QPR a nebulous construct, but a different conversation.

11

I agree with Larry, but to envision California QPR at the higher price points you really need to adopt a French value framework. For example - Pinot Noir. The most expensive new release Pinots from California top out at about $100. So the only way a (say Rhys “Swan Terrace”) CA Pinot could be considered “QPR” is in a Burgundy pricing framework.

12

Yeah, the whole theory gets fuzzy around the edges. You can’t really determine if the most expensive wines are actually good QPR because you have nothing to compare up to. Conceivably, DRC could be great QPR (in somebody’s world, definitely not mine) but you the concept doesn’t really apply unless there’s something more expensive and comparable. Or maybe the most expensive wines can only be bad QPR (meaning a cheaper wine could exhibit equal quality).

13

The problem with this question is that a person’s comfort level wrt price isn’t universal.

14

LOL, Charlie - your comment in combination with your avatar is perfect. [welldone.gif]

15

That dinner was definitely a good QPR event for me. [snort.gif] [snort.gif]

16

This is exactly why I posted the original message. I think the “average person” (whoever that is) wouldn’t view a $100 1er cru Burg as a QPR because it’s received the same rating as a $350 1er cru Burg, because spending $100 a bottle for anything isn’t within the realm of possibility. That’s why I used $20 as a benchmark, because that seems to be closer to the “average person”, i.e. average wine drinker. (Before it get’s brought up, I realize that there are plenty of people who’s economic situation would dictate that $20/bottle is crazy, but I had to draw the line somewhere.)

17

Larry P!gg!ns said it best - if a $100 wine drinks like a $350 wine, it’s QPR.

18

In a pure sense, sure. But the OP isn’t being unreasonable. Even around here, we don’t generally expect a so called QPR list to be dominated by south of of 75 stuff? Sure we do.
Yeah, 10 is to 35 as 100 is to 350, fine. But it’s way more practical to say a 10 dollar wine that drinks like a 35 dollar wine has a greater QPR than a 100 dollar wine that tastes like a 350 dollar wine. Diminishing utility. Scarcity premium.

19

Bob, thanks, but please keep my name obfuscated as it is in my sig.

20

This is a good point - in that we all probably believe that at some point, price becomes more a reflection of scarcity than of quality i.e. at some point you don’t expect an increase in quality proportional to the increase in price. Above that point, QPR has no meaning. Where is that line? Different for everybody, of course.