Sheldon wrote:

>
> > I would expect $20 wine to be a lot better than $10 wine, When it goes past that point I expect them
> > to be a lot better, but I don't think my palate is sophiticated enough to justify the extra cost.
>
> With $100 wine if you're not tasting $90 worth of better over $10 wine
> then it's not you, it's the wine. Wine is 90pct hyperbole, all that
> sniffing, swishing, and spitting is pure BS.

It is not worth it to me. Some people seem to be able to appreciate the difference. Personally, I do not
invision the day when I will think that I am getting a great deal on a bottle of wine for $100. I would
probably get more enjoyment of out of 10 bottels at $10 a pop,


>
> At one point I spent more than ten yers making my own wines. For me
> wines are not better or worse, just different.

Surely you are not comparing home made wine to great vintages.

> Lately I've been
> working my way through the various dessert wines, particularly the
> Ports. The pricey Ports are imported from Portugal; I've tried a
> couple in the $50/.750 Liter range.. I've no intention of buying those
> at the $100-$300 range. I actually much prefer the domestics from
> NY's Finger Lakes region; $10/1.5Liter. As far as I'm concerned NYS
> wines are the world's finast, and certainly the best value... I'm
> especially partial to Lung Guyland wines.

Finger Lake wines must have improved a hell of a lot. since the last time I tried some of them, which was
about 10 years ago. They were about the same calibre as Niagara wines had been back in the 60s, when they
deserved the bad name that they had at the time.

My brother loves port and had a great time in Portugual a few years ago where every second store in town
sold Port, and for about $3 per bottle.