“Hedonistic.” C’mon, it’s wine.
For spirits, it’s when aged 20-to-40 something Americans review a whisky and refer to it as a “dram” like they are walking the Scottish countryside with their Terrier.
3 Likes
QPR is a very valid term.
There’s a lot of bullsh*t in the wine industry used to sell wine at higher than merited prices. QPR can be a worthwhile indicator.
4 Likes
And I know your economic circumstances how? I order to align I must decipher your economy? NO—just tell me the quality. Signed “Triggered”
2 Likes
I think there’s medication for that.
QPR is a very useful term, even if it means something different to me than to a billionaire. I never use it as an excuse for a mediocre wine, but to describe whether I think a wine is worth it.
Sometimes I’m amused by meaningless wine terminology, but I don’t get triggered or enraged. What I find particularly amusing are contradictory terms within a single tasting note.
1 Like
First of all, John, I really appreciate the spirit in which you are taking this thread!
However, I don’t think the individual’s economic circumstances really come into play. If I say a $40 wine is good QPR, that says nothing about whether $40 is a lot or a little to spend. All I am saying is that of the world of $40 wines, I think this delivers higher quality than many I’ve had. I think that does add additional information than if I just said this wine is good quality.
8 Likes
I’ve got to admit, though, “split” certainly sounds like it would be a half bottle. Not sure that’s a great choice of word for a quarter bottle.
2 Likes
I agree with the hard to find definition and in that context it does not bother me. Too many times I just see it used for expense bottles.
3 Likes
The people using the term are equating quality an enjoyability. The context is usually in the “daily drinker” category. Someone else liking mushy strawberries with dill has nothing to do with how much you’d enjoy that wine. To whatever validity someone else’s view of a wine’s quality exists, that has no relevance to you if you won’t enjoy the wine to the same degree as them. There’s just no basic to think someone else’s view of a wine as “a good qpr” should translate to you. Just shrug and say: “Glad you like it, but it has a Tempranillo inclusion flaw, so I’m not interested.”
2 Likes
From reading peoples posts on here i certainly have a good idea of how much they can or are willing to spend.
This Saturday i had two very good Giacomo Conterno Barolos. They were very good. I also had a very good Pinot Noir from Wasenhaus. Good quailty all around. Is this what you want?
Mike you are trying to rationalize with someone who has a trigger…all you are doing is driving me closer to a state of frenzy! For the love of god…stop with the QPR!
1 Like
No, I appreciate a good tasting note (which that is not), and if you want to include a price ie. it was $50 sure go for it.
Where are the “mineral” police? 
4 Likes
Crushed limestone or some other crushed rock. GAH. Just typing it made me agitated. Bonus irritation points when people say they can taste the specific soil or rock types that they know the vines were grown on.
Also I’m with Wes on dry extract.
5 Likes
Thats fair enough. I was pushing it, and ofcause a proper tasting note will help.
But the notes would be like comparing apples to oranges as one note would be for a 10+ year Nebbiolo and the other for a young Spätburgunder. Both would sound like they had tremendous quality (they do). This is where i personally think it is interesting to hear people compare quailty and price and reason why they rather wanted one bottle of A or ten bottles of B. But then again we are all different 
4 Likes
Wes, love ya bud…but no, isn’t going to work. Try as you may, and you are trying hard, you can’t fix my trigger! It is a ridiculous, unhelpful, term.
Couldn’t they just include the price and be done with it?
I would say the term should never be used to describe a wine most people (who drink wines bought outside TJ and grocery stores lol) would consider to be “modestly” priced. Sure, that definition has some range, depending on income level, but an upper limit on the order of $30 or so works for me. Under no circumstances can it be used for a wine above $50 
I would never take the term to mean some actual mathematical relationship, just a shorthand way of saying “good value for money”.
1 Like
This board/group makes me laugh…all I said was it triggered me, and now I have spent an hour being triggered by the group. Going for a drink!
I’m fine with QPR as for me price is important (and it makes me think of Queen’s Park Rangers!) - my most cringeworthy term is “liquid sex”. Yuk.
1 Like
This is a good thread.
I think Mike Hill hits the nail on the head.
I also think QPR is a nice discussion topic when tasting wine with with non-wine people.
3 Likes