Your Bargain, My Value, His Dud

December 12 2006

Gremlins was a movie from my youth—a flick circa 1984 where Gizmo, a cute little furry creature of unknown origin, spawned evil offspring that multiplied exponentially when the furry guy was exposed to water.

That’s kind of how I see top 100 lists … they multiply exponentially when exposed to the opportunity for ink and paper. Virtually every wine magazine has a list of their wines of the year and most upper-tier retailers do as well.

These lists almost inevitably include “value” wines. It might be the most overused word in the wine lexicon.

Value, to me, is a somewhat nebulous concept.

Scoring a beautiful bottle of wine for $50 when only 150 cases are produced is a value to me. Scarcity drives price and Indiana isn’t first on the list for wineries to secure distribution. Value is also finding a $12 bottle of wine that drinks beautifully, but is priced for everyday folks that notice when the electric bill payment leaves their checking account.

Though, there is seems to be a dichotomy when calling something a value.

I think, as I allude to above, that a value is wine that drinks at least twice its price (as in our $12 bottle example) and a wine so good that it’s a must buy at the price it’s offered for sale.

I’m curious what others think, though. Please let me know how you define value.

This value thing came to mind this past weekend as I pulled the cork on two “values.” These wines are held up as bargains and models for bang for the buck by popular critics.

The 2005 Pillar Box Cabernet /Shiraz/Merlot priced at $10 bucks with a Parker score of 91 points and described by Mr. Parker as, “an unbelievable value” and “one of the great wine bargains of the world.”

In the words of my local wine guy:

This inky dark, ultra-dense fruit bomb has a spicy dark fruit nose and a super-ripe, full-bodied palate of rich, jammy, blackberry and ripe plum fruit that finish long and smooth with only the subtlest tannins in evidence.

Somewhere between the lines of my local wine guys’ description is the unsaid statement that goes something like, “This is a Tuesday wine if you like fruit and alcohol.” I, personally, didn’t care for this wine. It is one dimensional and not at all interesting.

What I didn’t mention in my reference to the two criteria for value is it doesn’t count if you think the wine sucks, period.

The other alleged “value” wine is also an Australian offering—the 2004 Woop Woop Shiraz—an 89 point rating from Parker.

This wine, on the other hand, is a superb value in my estimation and drinks exceptionally well for the price—many spots on the Internet sell it for $7.99—this is a bottle that compares favorably to $25 dollar bottles that I’ve had. It opens up nicely with a nice bouquet, is dense and layered and has bright fruit. I like it.

Overall, my lesson here is to take the Top 100 wine lists and the value wines for what they are—exponentially proliferating pieces of ink on paper and use them as a guideline for wines that might be interesting to try. But, in general, I don’t think I’ll be following too many more “value” recommendations anytime soon. It might be more fruitful to continue down the path of education regarding producers, reputation and style.