Slate's 10 wow wines for under 150 dollars

See the list here.

I'd be curious to hear reactions from folks here on his choices. I don't roll in that territory often enough to have an informed comparative perspective, but I was surprised how many wines he mentioned that I was familiar with, and sometimes have even tried.

Perhaps the wine internet is making me more wine literate!

Hi Keith,
I saw that piece too. I'm not sure what the purpose of this list may be. The world is awash with great wine for under 150$. Why write this piece? Is it to tell people who think they cann't get a wow-wine experience for less that they are wrong? Those people don't deserve the truth, and anyway, the wow they are looking for is the wow-this-guy-can-spend-over-150$-on-a-wine. They don'T get that from Huet or (most) Prüm, and I hope they never will. If any of them read this reply of mine, let me tell you: go and buy Montebello!

Peter

I was prepared to have fun dissecting his list, but I actually think it's a great one. Probably nothing I would argue with. Though I don't really know the Dauvissat Preuses, I'm willing to concede that Dauvissat makes great wines. I'm not enough of a Port drinker to choose who is among best. But first thing I thought of when I read his criteria was CFE, and virtually no one would argue with Huet and Prum. I'm a big Matrot fan, that's the biggest longshot on list. Not all of these might be my list if I was naming 10, but all of those other than Taylor and the Preuses would be in my top 40.

well, for one thing the actual headline says 'under $15' not $150. then, he says no bordeaux or burgundy - but then there are two. so its, 'i'm tired of spending big bucks on wine; i think i'll limit myself to a mere $150/bottle'? duuuuuude!

well, for one thing the actual headline says 'under $15' not $150.

The headline says under $150.

But there is also a link to a second story about wines under $15.

A little confusing.

Hi Keith,
I saw that piece too. I'm not sure what the purpose of this list may be. The world is awash with great wine for under 150$. Why write this piece?

I agree.

Why not write a piece entitled "10 red wines that are good."

But, I guess that's why I'm posting here and not writing for Slate.

I was prepared to have fun dissecting his list, but I actually think it's a great one. Probably nothing I would argue with.

True.
But it reminds me of why people with money rarely buy other people's yachts. If they have that much, they can have one built to their spec.
The analogy being, that people who have that much to spend and know enough to create this list, could probably make up their own list and be a lot more satisfied.
Best, Jim

I was prepared to have fun dissecting his list, but I actually think it's a great one. Probably nothing I would argue with. Though I don't really know the Dauvissat Preuses, I'm willing to concede that Dauvissat makes great wines. I'm not enough of a Port drinker to choose who is among best. But first thing I thought of when I read his criteria was CFE, and virtually no one would argue with Huet and Prum. I'm a big Matrot fan, that's the biggest longshot on list. Not all of these might be my list if I was naming 10, but all of those other than Taylor and the Preuses would be in my top 40.

You echo my reaction, Dale. One of my all-time favorite white wine experiences was the '85 René Dauvissat Les Preuses, but those who've had the experience say the Le Clos is usually a superior bottling from this producer. I don't travel in those circles, either, though...

Mark Lipton

If nothing else, it did convince me that I need to try a Trimbach CFE.

I sincerely hope that no more than five or ten people ever stumble upon this wretched column.

The whole purpose of learning the secrets of this hobby is that they are SECRET!

Heck, JJ Prum Auslesen are already at $99.99 locally, and rising.

Can't even get Huet anymore, owing to the irascible Mr. Chadderdon & his pecuniary peccadilloes.

Five or ten years ago, this column would have been about what a great bargain Roumier was, yet look at it now: $8000+ per bottle!!!

I sincerely hope that no more than five or ten people ever stumble upon this wretched column.
[snip[
Five or ten years ago, this column would have been about what a great bargain Roumier was, yet look at it now: $8000+ per bottle!!!

Dear Nathan,

See my comment in the chat Mr. Steinberger is holding on washingtonpost.com about "Don't give away the wine geek secrets!":

Please don't give away the wine geek secrets! If people want to drink great wine, they should have to work for it. There are only a few thousand cases of Trimbach's Cuvee Frederic Emile for the whole world, roughly the same as total production for, say, Romanee-Conti. Only a small spike in demand quickly will make it absolutely unaffordable for everyday upper-middle-class drinkers (and journalists, for that matter).

Besides, I'm not convinced that the "greatest" wines in the world are to everyone's taste. Only by familiarizing yourself with lesser examples can you taste the nuances that separate a merely delicious wine from a unforgettable experience. Thanks always for your vibrant storytelling about a subject that inexplicably attracts unwarranted dryness.

(Yes, I'm a Steinberger fan).

These are indeed wine geek secrets. And I was certainly aware, in writing the article, that I was potentially creating problems for myself and other grape nuts. What you say is absolutely true: A small spike in demand is all it takes to clean the shelves of a wine like the Cuvee Frederic Emile or--even more to the point--the Dauvissat Preuses. So, yes, I recognized that I was possibly shooting myself in the foot (actually, I did that by forgetting to burn those damn receipts!). But Slate isn't paying me to keep secrets--my job is to steer people to wines that I think merit their attention, and at all price points.

[snip]

Even Petrus not so long ago was considered to be from an unfashionable backwater (only Medoc wines were classified, etc.). Don't I recall that it was served at Queen Elizabeth II's wedding and considered to be an audacious, unconventional choice?

Walt

Interesting reactions.

Alas, as I wrote before I can't really speak to the wines themselves.

But I did find it curious that there was a lot of questioning the purpose of the piece.

When someone writes an article on QPR wines at $15, it is to point out the wines at that price range that somehow stand apart (presumably above) wines at a similar price point.

A similar logic goes for wines at $150, no? Just because there are a lot more interesting wines at that price level doesn't mean that one might not think that some are particularly unique at whatever price point they are at and again stand apart and above their similarly priced peers.

So if it's legit to write an article about 10 engaging wines for under $15, I fail to understand why the same logic doesn't fit for wines under $150.

In any case, I do find columns like these by Mike Steinberger very useful. A lot of folks hang around the lower price ranges and when they want to splurge and they want to seek out something special, a guide like this is a very useful map for considering possibilities.

It was a Mike Steinberger column on expensive Champagne from a few years back that led me to try Krug Grand Cuvée--and it was that wine experience that pushed me to start writing down my experiences with wine in the form of tasting notes. And I've learned a whole lot about wine since I started doing that (and hanging around these parts!).

When someone writes an article on QPR wines at $15, it is to point out the wines at that price range that somehow stand apart (presumably above) wines at a similar price point.

A similar logic goes for wines at $150, no? Just because there are a lot more interesting wines at that price level doesn't mean that one might not think that some are particularly unique at whatever price point they are at and again stand apart and above their similarly priced peers.

So if it's legit to write an article about 10 engaging wines for under $15, I fail to understand why the same logic doesn't fit for wines under $150.

Part of me understands what he is trying to do and I see how it has a point for that type of journalism.

But, just in reference to your comment, surely it is easier to find good wines for less than $150 than for less than $15? Once we get up into price levels of $150 isn't it pretty much about stylistic preferences anyway.

So if it's legit to write an article about 10 engaging wines for under $15, I fail to understand why the same logic doesn't fit for wines under $150.

Because we don't want the damned things to be $1500 next year.

$15 wines are made in quantities of tens of thousands of cases - everyone has a reasonable chance of stumbling upon them.

But what's the quantity on a Dauvissat Les Preuses?

250 cases? 500 cases?

Again: $150 was where Roumier was just a few years ago. Now it's quite literally $8000+.

But Slate isn't paying me to keep secrets--my job is to steer people to wines that I think merit their attention, and at all price points.

Screw Slate - and screw its editors.

They wouldn't know any better if he recommended industrial swill soaked in oak chips and fermented in artificial yeast with banana esters.

I mean, seriously - what the hell does this retard think he's doing by advertising a name like Les Preuses to potentially hundreds of thousands of label-chasers?

[Robin Garr]

I mean, seriously - what the hell does this retard think he's doing by advertising a name like Les Preuses to potentially hundreds of thousands of label-chasers?

Steinberger is a respected wine writer. Let's please avoid this kind of language about individuals whether they're present in the forum or not.

While I understand the urge to hold favorites close to the chest, the reality is that a Slate column is very unlikely to cause a run on any of these wines. All of them are acclaimed favorites of all the wine boards, have been mentioned in both speciality and general interest food magazines, etc.

As to some of the other criticisms, journalists need to have some kind of theme for an article (right, Robin?). This is relatively harmless. And if you read it, he came up with an interesting set of criteria, not just "good wines under $150." That the wines "had to be among the finest expressions of their grapes, styles, regions, or some combination thereof; had to exhibit the kind of profundity that separates the truly great from the merely very good; had to be underpriced relative to the (very few) wines that could be considered their equals; and had to be affordable enough that nonbillionaires could realistically contemplate splurging on them."

That's why I thought he did a great job.
Is there a greater Chenin producer than Huet (though I personally rank the demi-secs as my favorites)? Is there a better dry Riesling than CFE (well, CSH, which actually is under $150, but needs to be cellared 20 years. I guess other candidates would be things like Steiner Hund or some dry Germans, but those make CFE look commonplace)?
There's no under $150 Champagne I like more than Comtes. Few people would argue with Monte Bello as one of the great CAs, but it's very affordable compared to most competitors. Etc.

Most people willing to spend north of $50 for a bottle of wine know where to look. I just don't see this article causing a spike in demand for these wines. Not to forget that the vast majority of the wine buying public will not pay $20 for a bottle of wine.


I do regret that trophy hunters have driven the price of some of my most treasured wines (Burgundy especially) beyond what I will pay, but I still have access to more great wines than I'll ever be able to drink at prices I'm willing to pay; thanks in large part to the willingness of others to share the good news. Eventually the trophy hunters will move on to a new "tulip bulb" craze and some of the craziness will moderate.

While I understand the urge to hold favorites close to the chest, the reality is that a Slate column is very unlikely to cause a run on any of these wines. All of them are acclaimed favorites of all the wine boards, have been mentioned in both speciality and general interest food magazines, etc.

I'm reminded as well that I should try the Frederic Emile, but I'm not that worried about a run on it, or on any of the whites at least. My thought is that most of the people who read a top 10 article in Slate and decide to act on it are going to be the type of guy who drinks red wine only. They certainly will go to the red part of the list right away. The ones we seem to be worried about most here - the Dauvissat and the CFE won't get much of a blip. Just me, and maybe a couple other folks in each city around the country. The reds? Well, some might dissapear. Nothing new there, but popular attention is a fickle thing.

Might Steinberger's column affect availability? Perhaps. I'd suggest reading through readers' comments to his Slate articles, though. There, the class warriors launch invective at the "snobs" who don't think Two-Buck Chuck is the be-all-end-all of wine. Some of the posters seem to be personally offended that anyone would spend more than $15 on wine.

Hey, if that's what you like, great! That leaves more of the good wine for us "snobs."

I'm with Dale; it's an excellent list and in fact most of the wines are well below $150; anyone can have preferences in the respective categories, but the quality level of the wines listed is inarguable. IMO.

There, the class warriors launch invective at the "snobs" who don't think Two-Buck Chuck is the be-all-end-all of wine. Some of the posters seem to be personally offended that anyone would spend more than $15 on wine.

And who is the snob then? The person who likes the expensive wine? Or the person who dismisses any who like expensive wines as snobs?

Mark Lipton

There, the class warriors launch invective at the "snobs" who don't think Two-Buck Chuck is the be-all-end-all of wine. Some of the posters seem to be personally offended that anyone would spend more than $15 on wine.

And who is the snob then? The person who likes the expensive wine? Or the person who dismisses any who like expensive wines as snobs?

Mark Lipton

Exactly.

I hope none of you post as "Dave in VA" in Slate. I've been having an "interesting" discussion with that fellow in the comments to this article. (I'm posting as Dusty Bear.)