If it tasted like shit it wouldn't be worth any money at all.
Bottling costs work out at about £3 a bottle. This is pretty standard across the industry, though there is some deviation from place to place. Therefore if you're paying a fiver, you're getting £2 worth of wine. For that money, it's going to be pretty poor quality. You may well get some perfectly drinkable wine, yes. However, if you spend a tenner, you're getting wine that's worth £7. The difference in quality is going to be noticeable.

Obviously, like all things, the law of diminishing returns applies and there's always going to be exceptions. However, across the broad spectrum, the more you spend, the better the wine.
( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:47, 3 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

Unless it's a over branded product like Moët & Chandon

( hartley hare Just some prick who thinks it doesn't apply to him, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:49, Reply)

Read the last paragraph.
First sentence.
( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:49, Reply)

Sorry I just don't like Moët & Chandon

( hartley hare Just some prick who thinks it doesn't apply to him, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:55, Reply)

Oh, well, that's fair enough.

( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:56, Reply)

I dislike it to the point I would rather pay that money for Chompy's homebrew
than drink it
( hartley hare Just some prick who thinks it doesn't apply to him, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:57, Reply)

Not even in my top six Friends characters

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:57, Reply)

Dunno, I prefer beer.
What I meant was a very old bottle of wine, something bottled in 1750 or summat, where there would be no way of knowing what it would taste like.
It is often the case where a 'cheap wine' is hailed by wine experts as perfectly drinkable or as good as a more expensive brand.
I'd also assume that at some point in the pricing there is a levelling out in the quality and other factors are at play.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:59, Reply)

Other factors being, rarity, or the desire of some rich prat to be seen chucking money at stuff because he can.
Second one is champagne, definitely.

First one definitely applies to whisky - one of my mates is a whisky bore, he has at least one bottle worth over £1k, not because it's fantastic to drink, but cos there are very few bottles left.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:10, Reply)

You're using "facts" you don't understand.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:04, Reply)

Sure thing, chief.

( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:04, Reply)

Ok then explain why I can buy wine bottles at about £10 for 15 and corks for about 15p each.
At home I'm 1/3rd the price of your quoted bottling figure.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:12, Reply)

I must be super efficient without any machinery.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:13, Reply)

Maybe I should pay myself £40 an hour with my hand corker.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:14, Reply)

Or people to pay, or land to rent, or much in the way of any kind of overheads at all.

( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:14, Reply)

Then say overheads not bottling.
Then try to understand that the overheads on a mail order, bulk sell specialist business will be different than other places to get wine.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:17, Reply)

Ah, a semantic argument.
OK, nice work. You're much cleverer than me.
( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:18, Reply)

Arguing about the value of a product then quoting a figure that is wrong is more than just semantics.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:20, Reply)

It's not wrong
he's separated the "cost of the actual drunk product" which varies with quality and the "cost of everything else associated with conveying that prodcut to a drinker's gob" which, of course, doesn't particularly. He's just called it bottling costs to simplify, and you are just trying to win through semantics.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:24, Reply)

Most unlike him to not understand what he's banging on about.

( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:25, Reply)

Those fixed costs are SIGNIFICANTLY different by buying cases of 12, paying delivery seperatly and getting it from a specialist wine club.
To the point that him saying that they account for £3 of the £6.99 bottle is meaningless.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:27, Reply)

You mean distribution, unpacking from the cases of 6 or 12 that they are shipped in, and stacking on a shelf?
OK, I'll concede that extra penny per bottle.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:29, Reply)

And the cost of the possibly hundreds of local sites rather than one or two national warehouses.
The staffing costs?
It's the difference between amazon and your local bookshops.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:31, Reply)

I think you might be blobbing.
Calm down, eh, petal?
( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:32, Reply)

You just don't understand anything.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:33, Reply)

Haha, yes, sweetheart.
This definitely looks like another victory for Team Chompy, here.
( Kroney, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:34, Reply)

If Amazon only sold books.
In the same way that Tesco only sells wine. Oh, wait.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:35, Reply)

glucks guide
always used to be good for this in that he would rate the wine not only by its taste but also its value... You would find some surprising ones rate very highly.
(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Wed 26 Jun 2013, 13:09, Reply)