I searched the forum for a specific post regarding QPR and could not find one. However, there have been many references to QPR in recent posts. Some seem to place no value on QPR while others, including me, think of QPR as desirable. I really don’t see how QPR as a positive notion can be controversial. It simply means that a particular wine, or in some cases a wine region in general, offers really good value/quality for the price point. I would argue that an example of wine regions offering relatively good QPR in general would be: Willamette Valley, Rioja, Piedmont in general, Sicily, and many others. By contrast, I would not say that Napa Valley or Burgundy offer good QPR as a region in general. That is not to say that one very knowledgeable with Burgundy cannot find particular bottles that offer good QPR, just that the region in general does not.

It’s a completely relative concept depending on your desires and means.


A blanket QPR statement, like the one you are making about Napa and Burgundy, just throws a region under the money bus. There are too many exceptions to generalize at that level. It’s not unlike what happens when people make vintage generalizations - it helps create a perception that isn’t true. Scope that assessment a little bit more carefully, and you might hit something more appropriate, but there will still be to many exceptions to say it “in general.”


Could not agree more.


don’t forget Muscadet. If they doubled the price it would sell better. Few believe it’s world class at the low price commanded.

1 Like

I find QPR, or any idea like that, is only useful in a limited context, mostly to try to suss out brand/hype from juice. Maybe others can, but I can’t compare, at the level of points to dollars, Burgundy Pinot to Sonoma Pinot let alone a claret from Napa to a Syrah from Rhone. What does a 93 vs a 92 mean? What if the 92 is $250 and the 93 is $100? What if it’s reversed? So, for me, asking the 92 vs 93 question for Meursault 1er Crus is maybe where it starts becoming more relevant - that Coche bottle vs the Roulot or the Boisson Vadot.

Ok - in that neighborhood I can start to consider, but there are other problems: who’s rating? And is the rating scale linear? For me, there is enough rating variance (and bottle variance, age variance, palate variance, and just plain bias) that I see ratings, even in a very narrow area, as basically meaningless within a few points. So yes, 10 89s and 10 99s have more significance, but usually the spread doesn’t get so wide at least when we are talking comparables. When they do get that wide, prices tend to reflect the diff and, at that point, I think you have to ask yourself what an extra couple significant points are worth. I’d say the change is non-linear.

So, when is it useful to me? I think it’s useful in discovering those who haven’t been elevated yet by the market. This is hard to suss out from the ratings (fewer raters, less bias to rate higher) but this is the place. Beyond that: you have to find the wine you like and hopefully maximize pain of paying + the pleasure of drinking. That pursuit has led me down a different way of thinking of QPR: it’s the quality of the experience for me not just the realized juice in the bottle.

As Justice Potter Stewart would say, QPR is like obscenity.

To me, QPR exists when 1) I enjoy the wine, and 2) I don’t think twice about what I could have bought instead of that wine.

When I think of QPR, I like to compare wines within a specific style or region. I would rather compare 5 wines from the same region to assess QPR vs 5 wines from all over the world.

…and the point is? Way too many variables including context.

Out of hand I don’t think this is a good argument - many problems have tons of variables (weather, markets, etc) that doesn’t mean doing better than random isn’t possible.

1 Like

QPR is relative, but I see it as the relative enjoyment or satisfaction I get out of a bottle of wine. I understand that I can’t compare a $100 Napa Cab to a $25 Lopez de Heredia, but I can compare the enjoyment I get out of them. And yes, if I has greater resources that would likely change.

No one wins awards for highest QPR wine drunk.

If you like the wines from Oregon and Piedmont and think they offer good value, you should drink them. I find plenty of good value in Burgundy. If that changes, I will buy less of it.

1 Like


For me, it’s mostly about wines that offer quality and enjoyment at a price that I’m willing to pay to drink them regularly (i.e.: nightly or a few times per week). I sometimes extend the term to special occasion wines at higher prices. Both are very much affected by personal bias and preferences.

QPR is always related to preferences and the type of drinking someone does. My definition of QPR is useless to a wine investor or someone who usually drinks high end wines. The quality and price of a wine that I consider affordable ($10 - $40) might be completely different for someone willing to pay no more than $15…or someone mostly after relatively expensive “treasures”.


1 Like

The single biggest mistake one can make when beginning to collect wine is to load up on “value” wines that they may at some point realize that they no longer care to drink, regardless what a bargain they were.


I’m pretty new to wine but I’m already finding this to be very true.

I don’t really think of wine in this way. I take it on a wine by wine basis. Any specific bottle is either worth the cost to me, or it isn’t. I don’t care how great a value it is if I don’t like it.

The opposite is just as true. Load up on a particular area and high/higher end wines and as your palate changes you no longer enjoy them nearly as much as you did in the past.

I loaded up on solid wines in the SRP 20-30 range that drink well with some age on it and am buying a wide range of higher levels wines because I like drinking a wide range of stuff and find it more interesting than narrowing in on a single area.