I don't like QPR

Another post got me thinking. I don’t like the term QPR.

In QPR the R stands for ratio and therefore math is implied. Under that analysis, if you have a really nice $20 wine and then a different wine that is twice as good, really screaming good, for $50, the better “QPR” is the $20 wine. It is half as good and less than half the price. But is it the better value? The “cost” of value as you step up each increment of the quality ladder is higher. Obviously taking that step might cost money for the producer (use of barrel or bottle aging, or expensive concrete egg, or cost of grapes, or more expensive farming techniques, etc.). Or taking that step might not cost money (the winemaker is just more talented, or the fruit is excellent but not from a more expensive source, or whatever). But for me, I’d rather have the twice as good $50 bottle, even though the second half of the quality cost $30 instead of $20.

And then of course value becomes subjective based on your resources. Let’s assume that for every single one of us spending 50 cents is completely immaterial from an economic perspective. Then assume that you are hot and thirsty and offered a choice of waters: (a) a room temperature glass for 1 cent; and (b) an awesome ice cold glass for 50 cents. Because 50 cents is meaningless to you, the ice cold glass is the better choice, even though the QPR is not there (assuming you like cold water better). It’s not 50 times as good. The same applies to wine. If I have the resources to easily drink a $30 bottle without impacting my own economics, then I can do that every night instead of drinking the $10 bottles, and that is better for me and makes me happier even though the $30 bottles might not be three times as good. And up in the stratosphere of the truly wealthy, if a $10,000 bottle is only marginally better than a $200 bottle, it is still a better choice if $10,000 really means nothing.

I’m also not implying that less expensive bottles can’t be better than more expensive bottles. Of course they can. And of course the perception of wine quality is personal and subjective. Barefoot Moscato may be considered a worse wine than Rinaldi Barolo to most of us, but I can guarantee that my sister in law would consider the Moscato the better value even if they both cost $6.

So I like to use “value” rather than QPR, and I often like to use “value for me” rather than value. Maybe it’s just my sense of language and most of us use QPR as a stand in for value, but I think value is the better term. Thoughts?

You aren’t alone. Nobody likes Queens Park Rangers.

Your math is flawed. Any wine I’ve been willing to say offered twice the pleasure of my favorite $20 wines has been priced in excess of $100.
Compared to my previous passion, sports car racing, I would say wine in general has poor QPR - especially when one considers the memories created by the activity. Even most of my worst race events have offered me more pleasure than my best wine experiences, and a single race would amortize at $1000+ when all costs were taken into account.

I don´t want to contradict you, and generally I would agree, but
the major problem is: what is “twice” as good? or “three times” as good?

Some here boycott points (out of 100) to measure wine quality - but they have their virtues.
At least we can say that a 95 point wine (in the eyes of the rater) is better than a 90 point wine …
but is 95p twice as good as 90 points - or only 5% better?

Obviously taking that step might cost money for the producer (use of barrel or bottle aging, or expensive concrete egg, or cost of grapes, or more expensive farming techniques, etc.).<

In quite a lot of cases the terroir where the grapes are grown (and deliver - hopefully - better quality) is simply more expensive, often much more expensive …
Generally I think to buy a wine that is 3/4/5 points better you often have to pay twice as much if not more …

How about a favorite term used by a friend of mine… “Bang for buck” or BFB?

Last time I did “bang for buck” I couldn’t stop itching for a week.

FIFY! Changes the conversation a bit doesn’t it?

It’s not linear. More like the Richter scale. Exponential.

That’s gold, Brian!

Please start a movement against QPR wines. Would leave more for the rest of us.

This is all a bit pedantic for me. Tomato Tomahto.

Well I don’t like it either, but I have to live with it. [drinks.gif]

The easiest maths is: If I have $x to spend, which appeals most to me? It might be a single bottle of a legendary wine, 3 fancy bottles, 12 good examples, 36 basic cuvees or 100 bottles of plonk.

Each to their own and FWIW, apart from trying it out myself with a brief play at adding “price I’d pay for another bottle vs. price I paid for that bottle” to my tasting notes (e.g. $12 / $9), I don’t recall anyone ever trying to quantify QPR (or VFM). Well not since some posts (IIRC) on E-bob where someone was genuinely keen to find the highest RMP points for the lowest price, and taking that rather too seriously.

For me, the ratio above (what you’d pay for another bottle / Price paid or market price) is better than trying to match to these hypothetical 100 or 20 point scales. Keep it simple.

Only a modern Bordeaux fan would hate QPR wines.

BTW I think it was the fake turf that caused everyone to hate Rangers.

or “Bang for Dollar” [whistle.gif]

Agreed. Spurs all the way.

I agree with just about all of this, and that’s a big part of my point.

Sure does. If we could all agree that’s what QPR means I’d be a happy user of the term.

Ha! I love good value wines, I just don’t like the term.

The only variable is P since Q=93