The cost of a great mouthful of food versus wine.

[Scott_Brunson]

I would rather drink a $25 bottle of wine with a $300, 6-course tasting menu than a $300 bottle with a $25 pizza.

I’d rather have that $300 bottle with a $25 Flannery ribeye!

$25?

That’s a helluva sale.

[Keith_Levenberg]

I think it makes sense considering one is an experience and the other is a physical, collectible item that usually holds its value and often appreciates. If wine wasn’t bottled and the only way to ever enjoy it was poured from a barrel at restaurants, I imagine they would be priced much closer.

I think you may run into some flak for that. So basically, Romanee Conti is not actually a beverage but an investment; the Abe’s sardines of wine.

I think James is correct. Wine would cost less if you could only drink it on the spot and couldn’t collect it. Indeed, as wine gets more expensive, the retail/restaurant price gap narrows and often reverses. It costs more to have your cake than to eat it. It is our caveman hunter-gatherer instincts at work. We like acquiring stuff. People who don’t ever go to a museum will pay millions for paintings. People will spend more on sports collectibles than they spend going to games. The scientific name of chocolate is theobroma, the food of the gods. Nothing in the world tastes better than chocolate. But there is nothing collectible about it, so it is cheap. You say wine is a higher pleasure than chocolate? Maybe, but so is Mozart. You can go to a free concert and hear Mozart. Nothing to collect there. If someone could find a handkerchief verifiably owned by Mozart it would without a doubt auction for vastly more money than it takes to hear the greatest orchestras in the world play his complete symphonies.

[Anton_D]

I would rather drink a $200 bottle of wine with a $15 dinner than a $15 bottle of wine with a $200 dinner. Unlike most of my friends that are foodies, I only eat to live.

Just ask Fu at Pioneer Chicken!

[Mikko_Tuomi]

Masa has been effectively $1k for over 10 years when you count all the upsell they do during the dinner. Now it is going the be $2k.

[Br1an_Th0rne]

I would rather drink a $25 bottle of wine with a $300, 6-course tasting menu than a $300 bottle with a $25 pizza.

I’d rather have that $300 bottle with a $25 Flannery ribeye!

$25?

That’s a helluva sale.

As Bryan would say, those mismatched filets, strips and ribeyes are a helluva deal!

[Scott_Brunson]

Brother Gleason forbade me from explaining the joke.

[Albert_R]

I would rather drink a $25 bottle of wine with a $300, 6-course tasting menu than a $300 bottle with a $25 pizza.

I’d rather have that $300 bottle with a $25 Flannery ribeye!

This in the pleasant comfort of my home!!! Although I would go with the hanger!

[RyanC]

I think it makes sense considering one is an experience and the other is a physical, collectible item that usually holds its value and often appreciates. If wine wasn’t bottled and the only way to ever enjoy it was poured from a barrel at restaurants, I imagine they would be priced much closer.

I think you may run into some flak for that. So basically, Romanee Conti is not actually a beverage but an investment; the Abe’s sardines of wine.

I think James is correct. Wine would cost less if you could only drink it on the spot and couldn’t collect it. Indeed, as wine gets more expensive, the retail/restaurant price gap narrows and often reverses. It costs more to have your cake than to eat it. It is our caveman hunter-gatherer instincts at work. We like acquiring stuff. People who don’t ever go to a museum will pay millions for paintings. People will spend more on sports collectibles than they spend going to games. The scientific name of chocolate is theobroma, the food of the gods. Nothing in the world tastes better than chocolate. But there is nothing collectible about it, so it is cheap. You say wine is a higher pleasure than chocolate? Maybe, but so is Mozart. You can go to a free concert and hear Mozart. Nothing to collect there. If someone could find a handkerchief verifiably owned by Mozart it would without a doubt auction for vastly more money than it takes to hear the greatest orchestras in the world play his complete symphonies.

TITCR

The only thing weird about wine (unique about wine?) is that the principal point of collecting it is to kill it and make it gone. It’s probably the reason why wine, as expensive as it is, hasn’t reached the stratosphere of sports cards/guitars/etc.

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

I would rather drink a $25 bottle of wine with a $300, 6-course tasting menu than a $300 bottle with a $25 pizza.

I’d rather have that $300 bottle with a $25 Flannery ribeye!

$25?

That’s a helluva sale.

Timing is everything

[Yao_C]

Food and wine have both, individually, provided me many opportunities to have fun times with friends over the years. On the rare occasion I get to enjoy special bottles in a special restaurant with good friends who are into both, the joy is multiplied. There are very few passions in my life that synergize like that (e.g. no wine at the racetrack!), which I think accounts for a lot of my willingness to pay up for either

I would rather drink a $25 bottle of wine with a $300, 6-course tasting menu than a $300 bottle with a $25 pizza.

For me, it’s the opposite.

But for the most part, I enjoy good wine with good food, although wine is more important. However, the “better” the food gets, the less important and actually more difficult to pair the wines become. I prefer having my most coveted bottles with a “very good” meal, in a restaurant that would be in the $100-150 range per person.

Agreed

Once it becomes a $300+ multi-course tasting menu, I often find that wine distracts from the food or vice versa. In those settings, I’d rather have a a versatile, high quality wine rather than a ultra high end collectible bottle…

Or even a cocktail (le gasp)

[C_Mc_Cart]

For me this can go either way, depending on mood and the dinner.
Can enjoy an epic tasting menu with fairly basic wine(s) and my focus will be the food.
Can enjoy an epic wine with a simple plate of pasta.

[Andrew_K]

The food is rarely that good. The wine is rarely that bad.

[RyanC]

The food is rarely that good. The wine is rarely that bad.

True. A $1,000 dinner is hit or miss. Opening good bottles with friends is never miss.

That said, I don’t think this particular dynamic has anything to do with the pricing asymmetry.

[R_Frankel]

I would rather drink a $25 bottle of wine with a $300, 6-course tasting menu than a $300 bottle with a $25 pizza.

For me, it’s the opposite.

But for the most part, I enjoy good wine with good food, although wine is more important. However, the “better” the food gets, the less important and actually more difficult to pair the wines become. I prefer having my most coveted bottles with a “very good” meal, in a restaurant that would be in the $100-150 range per person. Once it becomes a $300+ multi-course tasting menu, I often find that wine distracts from the food or vice versa. In those settings, I’d rather have a a versatile, high quality wine rather than a ultra high end collectible bottle…

I’m with Andy on this. And I vote with my wallet too. I have maybe two or three $150+ mega course extravaganza dinners per year. Maybe. Anyway, pairing is basically impossible when you have 10+ courses, coming one after another every 10 or 15 minutes; so I usually opt for something straightforward, not too heavy, and likely to pair widely. For example: Champagne.

But I have world class bottles of wine (no, not DRC) several times a week, usually with fairly simple meals that I cook.

[GregT]

Romanee Conti doesn’t inspire the same shock and awe because it’s so far off of regular folks’ radar screen that it may as well not exist.

The problem is also education. People have to learn that they’re supposed to love or be in awe of RC. They don’t need an education regarding food. And if you don’t know you’re supposed to be in thrall to some Burgundy, you just end up with wine you really like. Or whatever the somm recommends.

As to whether RC is off the radar screen of wine folks, that’s a different question. Wine people know they’re supposed to be in awe. But drinking blind, without the label in front of you? Maybe not the best wine in the whole entire world.

OTOH, if you get a great fish just pulled out of the sea, it’s pretty understandable. You either don’t like fish or you go ahead and dive into that one.

[James_Billy]

I think it makes sense considering one is an experience and the other is a physical, collectible item that usually holds its value and often appreciates. If wine wasn’t bottled and the only way to ever enjoy it was poured from a barrel at restaurants, I imagine they would be priced much closer.

I think you may run into some flak for that. So basically, Romanee Conti is not actually a beverage but an investment; the Abe’s sardines of wine.

I think James is correct. Wine would cost less if you could only drink it on the spot and couldn’t collect it. Indeed, as wine gets more expensive, the retail/restaurant price gap narrows and often reverses. It costs more to have your cake than to eat it. It is our caveman hunter-gatherer instincts at work. We like acquiring stuff. People who don’t ever go to a museum will pay millions for paintings. People will spend more on sports collectibles than they spend going to games. The scientific name of chocolate is theobroma, the food of the gods. Nothing in the world tastes better than chocolate. But there is nothing collectible about it, so it is cheap. You say wine is a higher pleasure than chocolate? Maybe, but so is Mozart. You can go to a free concert and hear Mozart. Nothing to collect there. If someone could find a handkerchief verifiably owned by Mozart it would without a doubt auction for vastly more money than it takes to hear the greatest orchestras in the world play his complete symphonies.

Music is far more egalitarian You can collect music on records, CDs, etc. But they are easily replicated in almost infinite numbers, so seldom attract large price tags. Dylan costs the same as [insert latest boy band name.]

[Brian_Tuite]

I think it makes sense considering one is an experience and the other is a physical, collectible item that usually holds its value and often appreciates. If wine wasn’t bottled and the only way to ever enjoy it was poured from a barrel at restaurants, I imagine they would be priced much closer.

But you can only drink that bottle once.

Coravin Wine Preservation Systems and Accessories

[Shan_A]

One variable in the equation is portability, convenience and immediacy. Restaurant pricing would be a bit higher if I could treat it like a bottle of wine: on a whim, I could press the red button, and in 15 minutes have the Chef’s table team serving a pop up restaurant with full service in my home. That red button would be worth more than (i) fighting to secure a time-slot to consume a meal months in advance, (ii) dress up for such meal, (iii) travel to such meal, (iv) consume the meal, (v) travel back home from the meal. For example, I haven’t been able to sell a gift certificate to Chef’s Table at a discount, as the potential buyers haven’t been able to get a reservation at their preferred time; I would not have that problem with the equivalently priced bottle of wine.

[Markus_S]

The only thing weird about wine (unique about wine?) is that the principal point of collecting it is to kill it and make it gone.

This is the same logic of the big hunter killing the elusive endangered animal and why people pay 10’s of thousands of dollars to kill things in Botswana.

[RyanC]

The only thing weird about wine (unique about wine?) is that the principal point of collecting it is to kill it and make it gone.

This is the same logic of the big hunter killing the elusive endangered animal and why people pay 10’s of thousands of dollars to kill things in Botswana.

There’s definitely a parallel.