I know a ton of love and expense goes into making great CA wines but I find it easier to part with $50 or more on wines from France and nearly impossible to spend more than $75 on anything from CA. Don’t get me wrong I’m still actively buying PN, Chard, and Cab blends from CA but for whatever reason its easier for me to part with $50, $75 or $150 on a Burg, Bordeaux, or Cote Rotie than a top flight CA version. Just a personal observation, not an indictement of CA wines. The ones I still selectively buy, I really admire. Obviously I’ved got a predominately Euro oriented palate though.
France for me, but that’s true for me at pretty much every price point. Easier for me to buy $8 Loires than $8 CA chenin blanc.
Cheers,
-Robert
Yep. Especially Pinot and chard. $60 for a Cali Pinot WTF! Then turn around and buy a “steal” of burg at 75 a btl.
My average purchase price for French wines is about 103% of my average purchase price for CA wines … but that was not your question; you were inquiring about bottles that are $50+ …
For bottles over $50 that are from either France or CA, 65% are from CA. So, I guess it’s been easier for me to spend that money on CA wines.
California - but I think that is more a function of how I buy wines. Over 80% of my California purchases are winery direct, whereas virtually 100% of French purchases are at retail. Somehow it seems easier for me to go “all in” on an allocation of $50 or $75 then it is for me to run down to the retailer and fill up a cart full of like-priced wines.
So yes - I have identified the problem. Now if I can only correct it…
CA
France and Italy, but that’s a function of a two main things. First, the flavors I like, second, the perceived ageability (I have an upper limit for wines that need to be drunk young or that won’t evolve). Part of the reason to spend more than about $30 per bottle for me is that the wine evolves with time. If it doesn’t, then for the same money I’m getting less. That would mean a $75 wine that doesn’t evolve much would need to be even more extraordinary young. If both bottles are roughly as good young… why buy the one that doesn’t evolve if it’s the same price?
50 bucks California. 100 bucks France.
California by far but that has more to do with my lack of experience with French wines in the $50-100 range and extensive experience with California. I can think of many California wines that I like and will buy in this range but very few Bordeaux.
However, I’m far more likely to pay $500 for a aged first or second growth Bordeaux than $500 for a future release of Harlan. Burgundy isn’t usually on the shopping list.
It’s easier to not spend $50+ on either and stock up on better values. ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
RT
Similar situation on my part. Most high priced purchases are wines I’ve tasted, which means CA wines generally. The #1 factor in enjoyment for me, perhaps even above quality (however that’s defined), is the wine style being something I want to drink. If I find a wine has an especially interesting flavor profile, structure and depth then it’s worth it to spend a bit more. Buying randomly at high price points just isn’t an especially reliable method–critics’ tasting methodology is too far removed from how I drink wine to be more than sporadically useful. If people are buying for tasting groups, though, then it makes much more sense to take chances using critics’ notes since the risk is hedged by having many other wines present and tasting using a methodology similar to what critics do.
I have a pretty even balance of CA and non-CA, actually, it’s just the non-CA wines seem to be clustered at a lower price point. I find it simplifies my life if I place an arbitrary cap on what I buy blind–if it is over the price point, then I just ignore!
While I buy very little CA wine, a much higher percentage of my CA bottles cost $50+, because the QPR for CA wines is worse in my opinion, so I often need to spend more to hit my sweet spot.
For me its no contest. I like world class wines and you can’t buy one for $50 from California whereas its easy pickings from, say CDP.
R U more thn 14 yrs old? Srsly.
Much easier to spend $50+ on French wines . . . but then again, some CA wines (Dominus, Kapscandy etc etc) are worth it. But then again, you look at Dagueneau’s Silex and that’s a $100 bottle of Sauvignon Blanc. . .
No world-class wines from CA are $50? Bullshit.
+1
+1
While I don’t find a ton of Cali wines <$20 that get me excited, I think the really sweet spot is the $20-$80 (give or take) for my palate. Rarely when I spend more, do I derive significantly more pleasure. I seem to be more willing to spend more on french wines, namely classified growths from Bordeaux (not firsts). Of course, there are a number of exceptions, but this holds as a general rule. It’s a shame I don’t really care for Cdp.
I used to buy wines from California regularly. I don’t buy domestic wines for the most part any more. Even when I was buying domestic wines I rarely found anything I liked under $50. California particularly has had and continues to have a severe lack of high quality wines that are below $25 (Washington tends to do a better job, though I don’t buy those either). Most of the things I buy below $50 tend to be French sparklers, Beaujolais, Austrian and German wines (I will also buy things like Spanish whites and Australian Rieslings but very infrequently).
+1
My only $50+ bottles have been from a few rare occasions when I’ve done the buying for our tasting group and had a generous budget…and those splurges have tended to be either Italians or VP.