Commentary: Expensive Doesn't Mean Great in Just About Anything. Especially Wine

By Evan Dawson, Managing Editor    

By now you've probably heard about the faux scandal involving Congressman Paul Ryan and his expensive bottles of Burgundy at a D.C. restaurant. If you somehow missed it, here's a quick summary:

Rep. Paul Ryan goes out to dinner with some wealthy friends.

Those friends decide to order two bottles of a $350 Burgundy.

A woman sitting nearby recognizes Rep. Ryan and looks up the price of the bottles.

The woman decides it's somehow incongruous for Rep. Ryan to talk about the government cutting spending while he's drinking expensive wine.

She also wonders if his dining partners are lobbyists seeking to buy influence.

They're not.

The woman yells at Rep. Ryan, lots of people freak out, but then most realize this whole thing is ridiculous.

As usual, wine writer Mike Steinberger has the best take on this fiasco. You can read it here. I had no idea that any Congressional Representative that talks about cutting spending must lead an impecunious private life.

But that's not what's bothering me today. See, the woman who raised a fuss wrote a column last week that is getting a lot of play. And in that column, she perpetuates the absurd notion that expensive equates to high quality. Susan Feinberg writes:

In the midst of heated debates between the president and Congress over slashing government spending, three men sat down to a nice dinner with a couple of great bottles of wine in an upscale Washington, D.C., restaurant...Calling these folks out for drinking $700 worth of wine while negotiating spending cuts that saddle others with all the burdens of “austerity” is what really upsets the natural order of things.

(Bold is mine.)

If this seems like a nit to pick, I assure you this kind of talk only further erects barriers between wine lovers and those who find wine intimidating or pretentious. I hear this rubbish from people all the time. Often they're not regular wine drinkers and they roll their eyes while moaning, "I don't have nearly enough money to drink the kind of great wine you must usually drink."

Sometimes the greatest wines fetch the highest prices. Lenn reviewed the Hermann J. Wiemer 2009 Magdalena Vineyard Riesling this week, and at $36, it's one of the more expensive wines from the region. It's also very possibly the greatest. Anthony Road Wine Company's 2008 Riesing TBA is $100, and it's worth the money. But other comparatively expensive Finger Lakes wines are the various cabernet franc ice wines floating around, and they're rarely good value.

Most of the wines in my cellar are about as expensive as a pair of movie tickets. I'm not talking about the drink-now variety, either. I've happily laid down some of the finest riesling in the world, from both the Mosel and the Finger Lakes, and it will show its greatness for many years. And it's relatively cheap. Yes, I have a few bottles that crack into triple-digits, but that's because I find them to be tremendously good value even for the price. However, some of the truly great red wine that I'm holding is moderately priced Northern Rhone syrah. There's Beaujoulais that set me back teens. When I finally pop them on a future occasion, I promise you I won't be rolling out price tags for my guests. No one will care about that.

Obviously, Feinberg knows very little about wine. And I'll agree with her that spending $350 on a restaurant bottle is stupid, though not because it's unfair to the rest of the working world. People who earn money are entitled to spend it as they see fit. But spending $350 on a middling Burgundy is stupid because I could stock an entire rack with that kind of coin, and it would be far "greater" than that single bottle. 

That's the secret of wine that is, apparently, still a secret to so many people. Greatness has nothing to do with price. The sooner people like Susan Feinberg learn that, the sooner she'll learn that Rep. Ryan's greatest sin that night was having bad taste and poor judgment.

Comments

[DougJ]

This is total BS, and beneath the standards of this blog, I'm sorry to say.

One of the guys was a hedge fund manager. So it's okay for hedge fund managers to bribe Congressmen with $350 of wine? Come on, you can't really believe that.

[Dezel]

Entertaining to say the least … but what hits home is “Greatness has nothing to do with price.” Well said, sir. I would also offer up points. Cheers!

[Evan Dawson]

DougJ -

A $350 bottle to a hedge fund manager isn't that impressive. Restaurants dangle $1k bottles for the hedge fund crowd. Do I think they were trying to impress Ryan? Sure, probably. Do I think he was being "bribed"? I have no evidence of that, although I'm sure it's possible. It would hardly be the first time.

[DougJ]

" Do I think they were trying to impress Ryan? Sure, probably. Do I think he was being "bribed"?"

Awfully fine line, tho, isn't it?

Clearly, the stuff Feinberg (and others) have said about expensive wine is ridiculous, I agree. And maybe I should blame them for going down that road, not you.

But Ryan is in effect the point person for hedge fund managers in Congress. When he drinks expensive wine on their dime, it's a problem. In fact, it's probably an ethics violation.

The fact that Ryan freaked and paid for it himself after he was confronted just goes to show how much impropriety there is here.

[Evan Dawson]

DougJ -

To be clear, my piece makes no position of my politics. I know you realize that, but I want all of our readers to see it again.

And I guess I'm probably inured to the ever-blurrier line of Congressional ethics. That's sad, but true. And I don't mind high standards and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I don't think you're off beat here, even if you find the transgression more egregious than I do.

[DougJ]

As for the wine consumption itself (irrespective of ethical transgressions), I would even say good on them for getting some sophisticated like an Echézeaux (even if Jayer-Gilles is a celebrity producer), I would have expected a Sine Qua Non or some other foolishness from these guys.

[Dragonflyeye]

F*ck it. I paid more than $20 for a bottle of wine, I've wasted my money. But then, I'm uncouth like that....

[peter]

Who cares. The problem today is that we continue to treat the symptoms while applying impossible "guidelines" to politicians. Dictating taste or behavior to politicians, or anyone for that matter, is fascist. The real issue is ignorance. Maybe the bottle was great? Why is this even relevant?

[peter]

Also, expensive isn't always an arbitrary negative perpetrated upon the unknowing. Supply and demand is just something we have to live with and i'd venture to say that quality does play a role in that. Not always but it does.

[Evan Dawson]

Peter - I think you're arguing with yourself. I agree with the general idea that the more you spend, the better chance you have to get something of high quality. But on a bottle-by-bottle basis, expecting price to equate to greatness is folly. Especially in wine.

And of course I have no problem with whatever prices wine producers choose to set. That's their business, just as it's mine to decide whether it represents good value to me.

Why is this relevant? You're hung up on the politico angle. I'm focusing on the fact that the woman who wrote the article immediately declared the wine was "great" because it was "expensive." That's the kind of association that hurts wine because it makes people think they can't afford great bottles, when certainly they can.

[Tom]

Just thinking, whoever ordered these 2 bottles of 2004 Jayer-Gilles Echézeaux du Dessus, just may really like them and it is one of there favorite wines. Who am I to argue with someone else's palate.
Of course, I would never buy it.

[Keith L.]

DougJ, did you also object when the Queen opened 1990 Domaine de la Romanee-Conti Echezeaux for Barack Obama? That's much more effective bribe material than 2004 Jayer-Gilles.