Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to be
for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine

1) cheap priced wine

2) moderately priced wine

3) expensive priced wine

Here's my answer for my budget

..75 bottles - cheap -- less than $6 a bottle

..75 bottles - moderate -- between $6 and $12

..75 bottles - expensive - over $12 up

Thanks,
Dee

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to
be
> for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine
>
> 1) cheap priced wine
>

Less than $20

> 2) moderately priced wine
>

Between $20 and $40.

> 3) expensive priced wine
>

$40 or more.


For me that is.

Salut/Hi Dee Randall,

le/on Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:45:11 -0500, tu disais/you said:-

>Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to be
>for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine
>
>1) cheap priced wine
under ‚¬3

>2) moderately priced wine

‚¬3 to ‚¬15

Very hard to answer because many, many wines are expensive for what they are
irrespective of the price.

>3) expensive priced wine
over ‚¬15

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

In article >, "Dee Randall"
> writes:

>Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to be
>for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine
>
>1) cheap priced wine
Under $8 US
>
>2) moderately priced wine

$8.01 to $30
>
>3) expensive priced wine

$30.01 and up.

These are just generalizations- I might well refer to $10 Burgundy as cheap,
yet consider $35 moderately priced for a good 1er Cru. I'm not consistent. I
just came up with the ranges based on:
cheap: Betsy, feel free to use for cooking
expensive: I only buy 1 or 2 bottles, for special occasions

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Will you also consider currency differences and relative costs of living in
different countries? How about taxes?
When I buy in Norway it is
1) below 85NOK
2) 85-100NOK
3) above 100NOK
In Germany it would be
1) below 7EUR
2) 7-12EUR
3) above 12EUR
In Sweden, it would be... well, do you want me to go on?
:-) Anders

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to
be
> for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine
>
> 1) cheap priced wine
>
> 2) moderately priced wine
>
> 3) expensive priced wine
>
> Here's my answer for my budget
>
> .75 bottles - cheap -- less than $6 a bottle
>
> .75 bottles - moderate -- between $6 and $12
>
> .75 bottles - expensive - over $12 up
>
> Thanks,
> Dee
>
>

Dee Randall wrote:

> Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to be
> for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine
>
> 1) cheap priced wine
>
> 2) moderately priced wine
>
> 3) expensive priced wine

LOL!! My definitions keep slipping upward as the cost of living (and my
income) increase. When I first started buying wine in the late '70s, the
cutoffs were $3 and $10. Now they are $10 and $30. I expect that within
another year or two, they will have increased by another $2-5. C'est la
vie...

Mark Lipton

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> Am interested to know what the newsgroup considers the price of wine to
be
> for THEIR POCKET BOOK for a .75 litre bottle of wine
>
> 1) cheap priced wine

Less than $15

> 2) moderately priced wine

$16-$30

> 3) expensive priced wine

$30+

I would also add:

4) too expensive for me to justify at any quality

around $65-$75+

5) Sweet Spot

Usually between $20-$30.

Dark Helmet

Mark Lipton > wrote in


>> 3) expensive priced wine
>
> LOL!! My definitions keep slipping upward as the cost of living
(and
> my income) increase. When I first started buying wine in the
late
> '70s, the cutoffs were $3 and $10. Now they are $10 and $30.
I

I think the chianti classico that I used to love (my first real
"premium" wine was like $2.50 a bottle a huge price to pay but my
first case purchase as well)

>I think the chianti classico that I used to love (my first real
>"premium" wine was like $2.50 a bottle

Does anyone else find the proliferation of $50 Chianti Reservas just a little
disturbing?

And Chateauneuf du Pape used to be the same way - grab a bottle for the party,
because the wines were almost always reliably decent and modestly priced. No
more!

In the mid 70s you could buy most Bordeaux reds at under US $10, and
even the first growths often could be had in the $20 - 30 range. Even
Romanee-Conti often cost well under $100, if you could find it. Many
very good Rhones were nearly given away. Now the 2000 first growths are
going for several hundred dollars. The 1985 Romanee-Conti sells at
auction for several thousand dollars. The best Rhones also can be quite
expensive. The Rhone growers should erect a huge statue to honor Robert
Parker for making their wines so much more respected and expensive. The
cost of the more desired high end wines has increased much more rapidly
than inflation since the 70s. Also the spread in prices between a decent
classified Bordeaux and a first growth has increased. Also there has
been a huge increase in the price of many US and Australian wines of the
cult sort, and a decent, but not cult, California Cabernet Sauvignon is
now not inexpensive.

The bottom price now probably is in the US$ 2-3 range per 750 ml for 5L
box wines. Many of these do not have serious technical flaws as did many
cheap wines in the past, but then they seldom have anything exciting
either. The upper limit for new releases has moved up to over $US 1000.
for some very famous and cult wines in the more desired years.

Rating wines as cheap to expensive depends on your income, and how
freely you spend money. To a very rich person who collects old masters,
even the cost of Romanee-Conti may not seem very high. For the poor,
even a US$ 5 bottle of wine may seem expensive.

cheap: 7 GBP max; moderate: 15 GBP max

there's always stuff on special offer that I like, so the original price
points are probably nearer 10 & 20 GBP

Times have changed as someone wisely pointed out. I have only been into wine
since 1995, but even then- not so long ago- first growths were about $100 on
release, and Romanee Conti was nowhere near where it is now. The 1991 that set
me back $400 is now going for close to $2,000. Scary.

I do not drink wine very often, and since I was ITB in college I was able to
taste quite a lot and get access to great stuff. So my definitions may be a bit
daunting, but keep in mind I maintain a very small cellar. If I drank wine
regularly my per bottle pricing expectations would be much lower.

Cheap- under $40
Moderate- $40-100
Expensive- $100+

That would be based on my primary areas of interest- Alsace, Germany, Burgundy
and Bordeaux.

Tom.

I've always thought that this was a silly question. There aren't any
absolute values, cheap for Bill Gates means something different than
cheap for the guy who lives out behind the dumpster.

If "cheap" means anything, it's something like "of a higher quality
than other wines in that price range" and expensive means "of a lower
quality than other wines in that price range." The price range itself
can be anything from $3 to $300.




Regards,

Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

In my salad days I never overspent on wine. I lived in California in the
60's 70's 80's and visited all of the California wineries when tasting was
free. I never cared for California wines and still don't. It's the barrel
taste - yuk!

But today my favorite wine is a Ruffino chianti -- not Reserva because I've
not been able to justify in my "retired on a budget" mind $18 for a bottle
of wine.

I sometimes see the regular Ruffino in large bottles for $12 and small
bottles for $7.50. I usually buy the large bottles when I see them, but it
is not often I see them; I have to go CT to find them. Then I stock up.

Now I can only find for $18 small bottle Ruffino reserva at Costco. Maybe
I'll try it for Christmas eve.








"Cwdjrx _" > wrote in message
...
> In the mid 70s you could buy most Bordeaux reds at under US $10, and
> even the first growths often could be had in the $20 - 30 range. Even
> Romanee-Conti often cost well under $100, if you could find it. Many
> very good Rhones were nearly given away. Now the 2000 first growths are
> going for several hundred dollars. The 1985 Romanee-Conti sells at
> auction for several thousand dollars. The best Rhones also can be quite
> expensive. The Rhone growers should erect a huge statue to honor Robert
> Parker for making their wines so much more respected and expensive. The
> cost of the more desired high end wines has increased much more rapidly
> than inflation since the 70s. Also the spread in prices between a decent
> classified Bordeaux and a first growth has increased. Also there has
> been a huge increase in the price of many US and Australian wines of the
> cult sort, and a decent, but not cult, California Cabernet Sauvignon is
> now not inexpensive.
>
> The bottom price now probably is in the US$ 2-3 range per 750 ml for 5L
> box wines. Many of these do not have serious technical flaws as did many
> cheap wines in the past, but then they seldom have anything exciting
> either. The upper limit for new releases has moved up to over $US 1000.
> for some very famous and cult wines in the more desired years.
>
> Rating wines as cheap to expensive depends on your income, and how
> freely you spend money. To a very rich person who collects old masters,
> even the cost of Romanee-Conti may not seem very high. For the poor,
> even a US$ 5 bottle of wine may seem expensive.
>

In article >,
Dee Randall > wrote:
>
>In my salad days I never overspent on wine. I lived in California in the
>60's 70's 80's and visited all of the California wineries when tasting was
>free. I never cared for California wines and still don't. It's the barrel
>taste - yuk!



There is an awful lot of California wine being made these days and most of
it is much better than it was 20 years ago. You might be surprised that
there are winemakers making wines with little or no oak at all. The
winemaking industry in California is far too large to generalize in this
way.


Dimitri

Now and then I do try a California wine; however it is still not to my
taste. I know one should not generalize about anything, but one can be
discriminating using what knowledge they have and express opinions about
their own "wisdom."
Thanks for responding.
Dee

"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dee Randall > wrote:
> >
> >In my salad days I never overspent on wine. I lived in California in the
> >60's 70's 80's and visited all of the California wineries when tasting
was
> >free. I never cared for California wines and still don't. It's the
barrel
> >taste - yuk!
>
>
>
> There is an awful lot of California wine being made these days and most of
> it is much better than it was 20 years ago. You might be surprised that
> there are winemakers making wines with little or no oak at all. The
> winemaking industry in California is far too large to generalize in this
> way.
>
>
> Dimitri
>