I'm stunned and offended by the direction wine and its pricing is going today. I've been trying to reason through my reaction to
decide whether I'm justified. After all, nothing could be better for the cultivation of wine as a part of American life than loads of
good press and a voracious interest by new and old wine drinkers. Higher prices are a response to the laws of supply and
demand. But why does the "pinnacle" of our American wine press always point to the glorification of high prices, outlandish
incomes and life styles of the rich and dying to be famous for something?
Capitalism and the not so covert desire to be a part of the upper classes (dreams of an aristocracy are alive and well) are one
aspect of the equation. And who, in the American tradition, would deny any business the right to take advantage of success?
After all, a wine industry that is financially healthy benefits everyone. And certainly no one would criticize a "little guy" who has
suddenly found favor in the eyes of the press, the critics and the consumer for using the notoriety to help finance his or her little
enterprise and make it grow. After all, the fates may not be so favorable in another 5 years.
American wines have been forced to rely on the grape varietal as an indication of the wine style. It's a young industry and there
hasn't been hundreds of years of tradition and natural selection that has yielded a Napa style or Mendocino or Long Island or
Hudson or New Mexico, to name just a few. American's have wine growing regions but the experimentation and heavy
borrowing from traditional European wine regions have yielded the greatest hodgepodge of wine styles and brand names know
to mankind. Even the clear winners in name recognition, Cabernet sauvignon and Chardonnay, come in such varying styles as to
be no greater indicator of what's in the bottle than the color of red or white.
Using that sort of logic, every level of the wine business could justify raising their prices to those who are raising their glasses.
The wine importers and distributors want their profit, (which is modest relative to the service they provide) and wine shops and
restaurants have every right to a theirs. If people want to spend the price of a Broadway theater ticket on a bottle of today's hot
wine brand of the moment, or a C-note on a good vintage of their choice, it's ok. I can still find something that doesn't offend
my senses or my credit card, right?
Or can I? Certainly when I shop at a good wine shop I can, assuming they've got any kind of selection and I'm not determined
to buy one of those hot brands of the moment or a "vintage of the decade" that's in big demand. I'm forced to shop, and if the
wine buyer at the store has done his homework, he's laid in good wines at every price level. The Wine Spectator didn't drool
over the winery's view? Robert Parker's Wine Advocate didn't give this one a "90 points or above"? I'll live! If the shop owner
wants more of my business he'll work hard to have what I want at what I'm willing to pay. He'll be able to convince me I should
take it home because he wouldn't have it in his store if he didn't personally think it was good. He makes his living on what he
sells, he knows what he's doing, and he wants me to come back. But, I like to go out to restaurants and I always drink wine
with my dinner meal (and lunch, don't pass it around).
All of the forces of the market place are at work in the wine shop. I've got plenty of choices about what I buy, including walking
out the door without buying anything. Most towns have more than one wine shop. This doesn't address the sticker shock on
many wines or the ersatz fame created by magazines hungry for advertising revenue. But the world is full of wine and I can pay,
or not pay the price of the madness. Some wines which come from a single vineyard have established a reputation around the
globe and world demand makes these wine very expense. It's unfortunate when your little favorite becomes one with the world,
but even this I can rationalize, although with regret.
This isn't true in a restaurant. I'm sorry to say it, but many, or should I say most, restaurants are sticking it to the consumer . The
great leveler, i.e. choice, in the case of the wine shop becomes, in the restaurant, a choice between drinking or not drinking
wine. If you chose to drink wine the choice is between $20 and $40 or more for a bottle to go with dinner. In the case of wine
by the glass, you're usually somewhere between $4.50 and $7 per glass. Ok, you can make the case that the restaurant once
again has a right to charge what the market will bear, but if the dining public knew that their mark up (the difference between
what the restaurant pays for something and what they charge the customer) was in the 300% to 500% range, Bastille Day might
get a bigger celebration in America. It is a common practice in restaurants to markup the least expensive wines on the list by
300% or more, and wines that are served by the glass, by 500%. What does this means to the diner? Get this! When you order
a glass of wine (about 1/4th of a bottle) you've paid the amount the restaurant paid for the entire bottle. When you buy a
bottle you're paying more, usually 3 times or more than what they paid for the lower end of their wine list and 2-3 times at the
upper end. At least where wines on the list are concerned there's a chance that the restaurant has had to store the wine for a
few weeks or months before you bought it, if that justifies the price. Unfortunately, this usually means that you can't find a wine
on a list for under $20 when you should be able to have a decent bottle at the lower end for something closer to $12 to $15.
The difference between price gouging in the restaurant and the wine shop is the opportunity to make a choice. In a restaurant
there is very little to motivate them to provide good wines at the lower price range. Since it is unlikely that wine pricing in the
most popular wines is going to cool down in the near future or that restaurants will suddenly give up quietly taking as much
money as the thirsty market will bear, the only answer seems to me to go public on the issue. There are restaurants that make
wines available at reasonable prices, even if somewhere else on their list the usual rules of restaurant pricing apply. We don't
want to dictate a restaurant's business, or their ability to make a profit, but we think that we should have a choice.
The first step in having a choice is having information, and toward that goal, I hereby challenge from my bully pulpit, The Wine
Spectator and Zagat's Restaurant Guide (and any other restaurant critic) to add a new category to their prized reviews. I
hereby initiate the category of the RE$TAURANT WINE CHOICE$ to be added to their list of rating criteria. Let the world
know if the restaurants they review also offer their customers a selection that includes wines at a fair price. I think it's as
important as the average price of an appetizer or an entree, don't you?
If you have an opinion on this subject, or my ideas and you'd like to make them public, send me e-mail. I'll dedicate a page to
your responses.
I'm still stunned by the prices of wines, but I have a little better perspective on it and realize that it's a complex subject, one we'll
be reading about for years to come as the world gets smaller while the world's vintners plant more and more vineyards.
Come back next issue to read about my solution for solving the mystery of what's really in the bottle of American wines before
you plunk down your money.
