Anonymous wrote:I once made an atttempt to drink my way up the ladder of Merlot's starting near the bottom.
The stuff under $6 was blah. I would NOT say undrinkable (I mean welch's grape juice is not undrinkable) but of zero interest. From $6 to $10 bucks, it started to show hints of something more. At $10 to $15 there were some very pleasant wines, with what seemed to me like some complexity.
Now that was almost 10 years ago, and there has been inflation. OTOH Merlot is not the cheapest varietal (though of course its more economical than Cabernet or Pinot Noir)
I have since shifted more to craft beers which I find more economical (esp as my SO does not drink so a full bottle of wine is not the most economical way to sample things) and I enjoy the scene.
I still have no difficulty enjoying your standard $10 bottle in most varietals.
I did once have a taste of a $40 a bottle Bordeaux. It was really good. My suspicion is that the price point where quality stops improving and it becomes nothing but snobbery is north of $40, at least for Cabernet's.
OTOH it wasn't so good that I would spend that much or more regularly unless I did have money to burn.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op again.
While you do not need to pay for extra wine, you should at least have a basic knowledge of wines for interacting with wine snobs..
My mom is kind of a wine snob and my MIL likes almost over the top sweet wines and I can sense the silent judgement
Or we could just not care what the wine snobs think. Or what any kind of snobs think, for that matter.
I agree with you in principle, but there are certain circumstances where it may be to your advantage to do this
Anonymous wrote:Many of the $50+ wines are small production, with less consistency due to growing conditions (primarily due to weather, but also changes in vineyard management practices) and experimentation in the wine making process (barrel selection and blending approach). A lot of people who enjoy wine appreciate and look forward to experiencing the variation across vintages. It’s what makes the hobby interesting! Also keep in mind that in Napa and Sonoma, the cost of goods will be much higher, driven by more manual processes (fruit is hand harvested and for some really $$ bottles, extensively hand sorted), high labor costs (at least $18/hr and increasingly offering more benefits in a competitive labor market), sustainability efforts, and small scale ordering. Your $10 Argentinian wine pays laborers significantly less; the $10 CA Central Valley wine was harvested by machine and is less nuanced because the mass market craves consistency.
It’s fine for you not to prioritize spending on this type of wine; but just as it would be narrow-minded to criticize the artists and collectors who support art beyond IKEA prints, don’t knock those of us who support, engage, and create within the wine community! Consider it potable art.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op again.
While you do not need to pay for extra wine, you should at least have a basic knowledge of wines for interacting with wine snobs..
My mom is kind of a wine snob and my MIL likes almost over the top sweet wines and I can sense the silent judgement
Or we could just not care what the wine snobs think. Or what any kind of snobs think, for that matter.

Anonymous wrote:Drink what you like. Certainly. However just because in your limited experience you have not personally tasted a >$20 bottle of wine you personally liked to enough that you would spend your money on it doesn’t mean that no such thing exists nor that others shouldn’t also....drink what they like. It necessarily goes both ways, no?
I have tasted good in expensive wines and good expensive wines. I have tasted bad inexpensive wines and bad expensive wines. Both good and bad come in a range of prices. I don’t think there beat <$20 bottle I have tasted is comparable at all to, say, the best >$100 wine so to me sometimes a more expensive bottle is worth it.
I feel like both sides of this debate are misconstruing the studies. They don't stand for the proposition that certain expensive wines are not "winners," and it may be that most of the best wines are indeed "expensive," however that is defined. And of course any expert can distinguish between types of wine, regardless. They just indicate that on average expensive wines were not rated more highly than cheap wines. And I'm pretty sure that even "cheap" was >$10 so no one was talking about 2 buck chuck. It really just means that PPs that claim that their taste buds just cannot bear any $15 swill and "you must spend at least $50 for good wine" are full of it!