Thanks to a study conducted in Edinburgh and that has been widely reported (in the papers and by the BBC), it has emerged that the general public has great difficulty in recognising the difference between wines that cost £5 a bottle and wines that cost upwards of £20 a bottle. No, really? You’d be very hard pressed to find a wine merchant arguing that this study has proved definitively that it really isn’t worth spending much money on wine, that you should just go and raid the end of aisle offers at the nearest supermarket.
Clearly I would argue otherwise and the question in the title is one that I frequently get asked. More specifically it is to ask whether that bottle they see on a shelf is worth the money. Essentially it just depends. It depends on the wine itself, but it also depends on what type of wine the drinker is used to. My advice has always been to try every so often something just a little further up the pricing ladder than you’d have normally see what you think. So if you normally have wines at £5 then try something at £7-8 and so on.
A number of things could happen:
a) you could decide it tastes about the same
b) you could decide it is different and not in a good way
c) you decide it’s different and that you like it.
Clearly you should go back to your good old ways of drinking cheap wine if the outcome is the first two options, but if it’s (c), well, now we’re talking!
As you go up the price ranges, you find that the ratio of the cost of the liquid to the bottle price increases very quickly – for a £5 bottle of wine, the wine itself accounts for about £1 (duty, VAT, profit margins, transportation, packaging account for the rest). A £10 bottle of wine contains liquid that would have cost around £4 to produce. And so on, and so forth.
As a bottle of wine goes up through the price levels, we in the wine industry talk about three main things. How balanced a wine is (is the amount of acid, the fruit levels, the texture and body of the wine in harmony and in balance with no jarring notes?), the degree of intensity a wine has – the more intense, generally the better the wine – and we also consider the complexity of the wine. So a £5 wine will, generally speaking, be easy on the palate, not very complex, and of low intensity of aroma and flavour whereas a wine retailing for over £20 will have so much more going on. It therefore can’t be too surprising that people who drink £5 wines on a regular basis find less pleasure in the wine that’s 4 or 6 times the price. I believe it’s pretty obvious that they will prefer the other wine with more obvious fruit character and less whatever else is going on which could be anything from mushrooms to old leather to walnuts.
The article on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13072745) was not just looking at preference, but in whether there was any difference between a £5 bottle and a £20 bottle. In response to the article, I would essentially look at it in terms of history – winemakers have spent many hours of their time, not to mention financial resources, to make wine that is as good as possible. Certain areas of land are a great deal more valuable than others because of the far greater potential quality of the grapes and so, inevitably, the potential quality of the wine itself. This is nothing new – all over Europe there are classifications of vineyards that recognise a hierarchy of quality. This results in very different prices for wines from neighbouring plots of land, with prices for Grand Cru Burgundy many times the price of a village ‘lieu-dit’ (single vineyard but not premier or grand cru classification). Are we supposed to believe that this is all for show? Is the wine market an emperor’s new clothes deception on a massive scale? Clearly, I don’t think that is the case.
In short, I’ll keep on drinking good wine and encouraging everybody to do the same!