My $16 price limit

I'm a bit of a quirky wine buyer as I've set an artificial price limit of around $16 on most wine I buy these days. This means I routinely blindly rule out any bottle more than my price limit, unless it is something very special, like I admit a high wine score. The problem is that ... as I slowly ascend into liking better wines and occasionally migling with more serious eonophiles, having such a low price limit seems out of place. At best, I get a "Well if that's your thing" attitude; worse is the "Well, you couldn't really appreciate fine wine, if that's all you'll spend". I've been doing some wine-soul searching on this for a while now.

While my price limit has gone up over time, it has lagged the increase in my financial standing. I recall looking for good wines for under $10 about 10 years ago in 1996. These were the days when the Rosemount Diamond Shiraz at $8 regularly got a WS 89 or 90 point score. When Napa cabernet was routinely still $20-35 a bottle. When $20 for a bottle could you a 93 point wine if you looked carefully.

Now, while most of the wines I buy are under $16, I will spend $24 for special bottles and even $35 for an exceptional bottle. The rule of thumb is when I go shopping, I like to average $12 a bottle when I buy several cases. A good quarter to a third of the wine is under $10. And at least 20% is over $20. So it's not a hard and fast limit, but more a persistant strategy on the average price of a bottle I drink.

I can get away with $16 in part because the world of wine has expanded and improved like any other fine food item. The pursuit of excellence means more very good wine is being produced than ever before. And much more decently good wine is produced, as cheaply as ever. Technically, improved vineyard management seems to be sweeping across the globe, as technique gets handed down and across the world map. And the number of dedicated, almost fanatic, winemakers seems to be exploding. Finally, the expansion of acreage in the wine growing regions in Australia, California, Washington, Argentina, and Chile to name a few, means that there is more good wine than ever before. So there should be plenty of decent wine at reasonable prices.

And in fact, there is plenty of very good wine for under $16 or even $12. As a "value" enthusaist and bargain, I drink a "90 pt" wine at least 1/3 of the time. I have an occasional 92 and on rarer occasionss a 93 pointer (Rosenblum England Shaw Syrah 02, about two weeks ago, but I really didn't care for it sadly, as it was very complex but not that enjoyable). But to get the 91 or 92 pointers, I have to break my rule and often spend $20 or even $24. The number of 94+ wines is countable on one hand, sadly. You have to ignore sweet wines, since it is possible to get 95+ points in Sauternes, tawny port, and other dessert wines.

But (as I drink a $9 Cycles Gladiator 2005 Syrah, which I quite like), I keep finding compelling reasons to splurge occasionally.

1. I'll spend a lot ($60+ for food) for dinner occasionally, even though most of the time I'm way under that. It would seem silly if I said, I refuse to spend more than say $28 for dinner ever.
2. There are categories of wines I simply can't enjoy, even once, with this attitude. A high end Burgundy or Bordeaux is out of reach. As is a high-end Napa or Sonoma cab. Ditto for a Super Tuscan or Barolo.
3. I have the money. A bottle or two at $50 isn't going to break the bank.
4. There is apparently a level of quality you don't often see at $16 or even $28. I had a 94 pt Langmeil Shiraz a few weeks ago (after lusting after it for 6 months on the shelf at home) and it was just a higher level of wine. The density of flavor and complexity were impressive. One the nicest finds in the last year at $16, but I imagine you have to pay much more to get wines like this, in general. The only reason I owned it was due to it's low price.
   

That said, there are compelling reasons to stay true to the course.

1. I really despise people who view wine as a status symbol, and the most obvious way to statusize wine is to play the "mine costs more than yours"
2. It's too easy to find good wine if you can spend $60 a bottle. It's a true test to find the gems at under $16 (or $22 or $12).
3. Spending more for a bottle doesn't guarantee I'll like it that much more. Maybe it's my lack of upper-end wine experience talking, but I doubt I'll enjoy a $40 bottle that much more than a good $16 bottle.
   
4. It's my thing. My schtick.

For now I'll stick with the "value" wines, but give me a call when you're having that 2005 Bordeaux tasting. With a $16 tasting fee.

Old World versus New World

In reading Andrea Immer Robinson's wonderful book "Great Wine Made Simple", she has a chapter called "Old World, New World". As a wine person, this knowledge becomes second hand, but as she points out, most people just aren't aware of this obvious dichotomy. It's a lot like the dichotomy of developed versus emerging countries. Once you know it, you're always aware of it.

(If there is a huge vertical space between here and the following table, blame blogger, which inserts it. I've tried to get rid of it to no avail.)

Category	Old World	New World
Countries	Europe:France,Spain,Germany,Italy	US, Australia, NZ, Chile, Argentina
Style	Reserved, elegant	Bold, fruity
Acidity, Minerality	Higher	Lower
Alcohol, Oakiness	Lower	Higher
Whites	Tangy, tart apple, sour citrus	Riper, tropical, melon
Reds	Thinner, cherry, red berry, mineral, clean dirty, tobacco	Thicker, big fruit, plums, dark berry, prunes, vanilla
White Grapes	Riesling, Chardonnay, Savignon Blanc	Chardonnay, Savignon Blanc, Viognier
Red Grapes	Pinot Noir, Cabernet Sauv/Merlot, Shiraz, Grenache	Cabernet, Shiraz, Merlot
Enjoy with	Traditional food	Strong food (steak, chile) or by itself
Bad analogy	Classical music, wisdom	Pop music, rock and roll, energy
Climate	Cooler or has daily coolness	Hotter or consistently hot
Soil	Rocky, minerally, not fertile	Fertile, rich soils

The above table is a gross simplication, but you get the idea. A good fraction of the wines don't fit the above profiles, largely due to climate and winemaker style, but it is still a very useful distinction.

Most peoples tastes have distinct preferences. Most new wine drinks perfer the immediate likability (or accessibility as the trade calls it) of new world wines. They are fruity and tasty. And yet, it seems most serious wine people (critics, rich people who have their cellars written up in some wine magazine, wine makers whose wine costs mor than $50 a bottle) prefer the old world.

My personal preference:

Reds: new world

1. I like the big bold cabernets of the US and Australia and the big shiraz of Australia.



2. I've begun to appreciate the French and Italian wines, but they aren't my first choice. The Old World arrow through my New World armor is French Rhone style wines, which I have started to seek out. It helps alot that there are many delightful cheap Rhone wines with high availability (Perrin & Fils, Vieelle Ferme).
   



3. Pinot remains an ongoing education. I like the bigger Pinots from Calif. And it is hard to justify more than $20 for a Pinot that I'm not sure I'll appreciate.
   

Whites: a mixed bag, though I don't drink that many whites

1. Chardonnay: I like huge oaky, buttery, smokey Chardonnays, which most critics have come to detest. But given their continued supply, I'm not alone (Columbia Crest - widely available, Kali Hart, Logan).
2. Blends and roses - slight New World prefernence. Big roses, which are a bit of a contradiction, are nice. I've had nice blends of both styles. The Beringer Alluvium is particularly nice.
   
3. Sauvignon Blanc - I am very fond of the bracingly tart NZ Sauvignon Blancs which are un oaked and very tart, in the old world style. A few Sancerre from France have been excellent. Not that fond of Calif SB.
   
4. Malavasia - a rare treat, this tart, green apple, limey wine is so old school, but me, the missus and a good friend all love it.

No matter what your preferences, after reading this column, you can say "you've been schooled."