There’s Absolutely No Reason To Spend More Than $3 on a Bottle of Wine

[Neil]

I predict that JR will ragequit when he sees this thread.

[Razgovory]

I bet JR can actually taste the difference.

[dps]

Here in NC, I don't think that I've ever seen a bottle of wine for as little as $3--heck, I think the sin tax on it here is almost that much by itself.

Back when I was in WV, there were some wines you could get for $3, but they were just rotgut, crap you wouldn't want to drink unless you just wanted to get drunk.  There were some decent wines available in the $6-$10 range, though.

[crazy canuck]

I bet JR can actually taste the difference.

I am pretty sure everyone can taste the difference between a good bottle of wine and a bad bottle.  Its just that not everyone thinks the bad bottle is bad enough not to drink.  The article says that not everyone can identify the expensive bottle and this is probably true given that the cost of the bottle is not always a good indicator of its quality.

[Gups]

The average American family spends less than $4,000 pa on groceries?

You can't buy wine that cheap in teh UK. You can just about get a £3 bottle of wine. Generally I agree though. There are plenty of £5 bottles of wine which are as good as £10 bottles, particularly if you like big bold flavours rather than complexity.

[Martinus]

The average American family spends less than $4,000 pa on groceries?

You can't buy wine that cheap in teh UK. You can just about get a £3 bottle of wine. Generally I agree though. There are plenty of £5 bottles of wine which are as good as £10 bottles, particularly if you like big bold flavours rather than complexity.

That is true. However, the thread title by Timmy just shows that he is a retard.

[Brazen]

Tax to curb drinking means the days of decent £3.99 wine are over for the UK

I tend to go to the supermarket French reds section and see what's got 50% off and is now £5 to £6. I seldom get a duff bottle. And the corner shop run by Pakistanis has decent plonk for £5.99, or six large cans of beer for £5, the value of which is difficult to communicate to countries blessed wit cheap booze. Suffice to say, a round of two pints of average lager will cost you £7 in a suburban pub these days 

[Martinus]

Tax to curb drinking means the days of decent £3.99 wine are over for the UK

I tend to go to the supermarket French reds section and see what's got 50% off and is now £5 to £6. I seldom get a duff bottle. And the corner shop run by Pakistanis has decent plonk for £5.99, or six large cans of beer for £5, the value of which is difficult to communicate to countries blessed wit cheap booze. Suffice to say, a round of two pints of average lager will cost you £7 in a suburban pub these days 

I may be wrong, but I'd assume wine is the relatively low risk when it comes to excessive drinking - beer and hard liquor should be the one targetted with such tax.

[Monoriu]

US$3 a bottle?  When we shop for wine for cooking, I notice that most bottles here cost in the region of US$20-30.  The cheapest ones are US$10 each. 

No, there is no tax on wine in HK.  I know because the government specifically abolished the wine tax a few years ago so that HK can become the wine hub of China. 

[Brazen]

I may be wrong, but I'd assume wine is the relatively low risk when it comes to excessive drinking - beer and hard liquor should be the one targetted with such tax.

No, excess drinking is growing mostly in the middle classes who think nothing about downing a bottle with dinner most nights of the week.

[Caliga]

I am pretty sure everyone can taste the difference between a good bottle of wine and a bad bottle.  Its just that not everyone thinks the bad bottle is bad enough not to drink.  The article says that not everyone can identify the expensive bottle and this is probably true given that the cost of the bottle is not always a good indicator of its quality.

Yes, I agree with this.  Trader Joe's sells a bottle of wine they call "Two Buck Chuck" (except I think it costs $2.50 now) and it's very drinkable.  But certainly I can tell it's not as good as say a $20 bottle.  That said, I had an $800 bottle of wine once and it didn't taste any better than say a $30-40 bottle to me.  I don't drink wine all that often, though, so to someone like say JR I bet there'd be a difference.

[Razgovory]

I can't tell the difference.

[Slargos]

I am pretty sure everyone can taste the difference between a good bottle of wine and a bad bottle.  Its just that not everyone thinks the bad bottle is bad enough not to drink.  The article says that not everyone can identify the expensive bottle and this is probably true given that the cost of the bottle is not always a good indicator of its quality.

Yes, I agree with this.  Trader Joe's sells a bottle of wine they call "Two Buck Chuck" (except I think it costs $2.50 now) and it's very drinkable.  But certainly I can tell it's not as good as say a $20 bottle.  That said, I had an $800 bottle of wine once and it didn't taste any better than say a $30-40 bottle to me.  I don't drink wine all that often, though, so to someone like say JR I bet there'd be a difference.

Placebo is a powerful effect.

[alfred russel]

Tax to curb drinking means the days of decent £3.99 wine are over for the UK

I tend to go to the supermarket French reds section and see what's got 50% off and is now £5 to £6. I seldom get a duff bottle. And the corner shop run by Pakistanis has decent plonk for £5.99, or six large cans of beer for £5, the value of which is difficult to communicate to countries blessed wit cheap booze. Suffice to say, a round of two pints of average lager will cost you £7 in a suburban pub these days 

I may be wrong, but I'd assume wine is the relatively low risk when it comes to excessive drinking - beer and hard liquor should be the one targetted with such tax.

In the US we refer to our homeless/very marginal drunks as "winos." I don't know if you are right on that.

[alfred russel]

I am pretty sure everyone can taste the difference between a good bottle of wine and a bad bottle.  Its just that not everyone thinks the bad bottle is bad enough not to drink.  The article says that not everyone can identify the expensive bottle and this is probably true given that the cost of the bottle is not always a good indicator of its quality.

Yes, I agree with this.  Trader Joe's sells a bottle of wine they call "Two Buck Chuck" (except I think it costs $2.50 now) and it's very drinkable.  But certainly I can tell it's not as good as say a $20 bottle.  That said, I had an $800 bottle of wine once and it didn't taste any better than say a $30-40 bottle to me.  I don't drink wine all that often, though, so to someone like say JR I bet there'd be a difference.

I think the 2 buck chuck is dreadful. I'm with CC that the cheap stuff is bad, and problems in identifying price points are more about uneven quality with more expensive wines.