On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:19:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>I've not gone down that $100+ bottle of wine, yet, but I will gladly
>pay $20-30 for a btl of French Champagne rather than suffer "sparkling
>wine", no matter how trendy or who makes it.

$20-30 Champagne is pretty low-end wine.

And "French Champagne" encompasses a broad range of flavor profile,
depending in large part on the grapes used.

Are you in the US? If so, seek out a bottle of Gruet Blanc de Noirs,
made in Albuquerque, New Mexico by members of the French house of Gruet.
~ $15, and better than anything from France you can touch for <$40.

If you're in Europe, try a fine cava. Or, under the right circumstances,
a top prosecco.

> I don't know if wine really does get that much better over $300.

You can't discuss "wine" in such general terms. Some wines do; some
don't.

>> Next up - Extremely good cognac. But for about 25 years I've been
>> saying a $200 bottle of cognac is next in line and it still hasn't
>> happened again.

Why should it, when you can get a major producer's XO for <$100? If
you're not familiar with the lesser bottlings, you'de be wasting your
time and money trying anything older -- or paying a ton of money for a
crystal bottle whose contents you can't appreciate.

>.... I know I like $80 Bourbon better than $20 Bourbon.

Ummm, that's a really uninformed statement. How do you know if Pappy Van
Winkle 22/23 yr. (the absolute best, IMO) is worth $125 if you haven't
tasted a broad range of bourbons, including Woodford Reserve ($28) and
Buffalo Trace ($20), for example?

> Vodka cracks me up! The more you spend, the less flavor. That seems pretty dumb.

Flavor is not the only characteristic of a liquor. And in the US, vodka
identified as such -- without flavorings -- is by law flavorless and
odorless.

Price snobbishness is pretty pointless, IMO. We have over 100 bottles of
different single malt Scotches in the house, whose prices range widely.
Our enjoyment of each does not correlate strongly to price.

-- Larry