Hacker News Reader

Comment by dagw | Hacker News Reader

Price is only weakly correlated with taste and quality and there are lots of $10 bottle of wines that are superior to lots of $30 bottles of wines. That being said, if I was offered pairs of randomly selected wines from the same grape and region, one costing $10 and the other $30, I'd like to think I'd pick out the $30 wine with a better random success rate. That being said again there is no reason to assume that one would necessarily always prefer the $30 bottle to the $10.

However at the price ranges we're talking about here you're not simply paying for taste. You're paying to drink something that is rare and in some way unique and/or interesting.

View on HN

> I'd like to think I'd pick out the $30 wine with a better random success rate

In my experience, wine bars are happy to serve flights blind. I usually taste blind, do a reveal and then ask an expert how to describe what I liked (and didn't).

For some regions, e.g. Bourgogne or Châteauneuf-du-Pape, my tastes are expensive. For others, e.g. Italy, I prefer some lower-priced varietals (e.g. Valpolicella) over some higher-priced ones (e.g. Amarone).

On the latter, neither of those are varietals. Valpolicella is a viticultural region, which produces both of those wines.

Amarone's are made of dried grapes, which have a different flavor. Typical "valpolicella" can be made of the same grapes (several are used) and the "superiors" use some of the remnants of Amarone production.

You'll get different Valpolicella's with different varietals - you are most likely just picking up on the dried/ not dried as your preference.

FWIW as was custom many old-world wines don't label by varietal, that was more of a new world custom that has somewhat been adopted in Europe. Which can cause confusion with some varietal wines being inconsistently labeled e.g. Tempranillo (grape) and Rioja (region). In some cases it doesn't make much sense to label by varietal, e.g Châteauneuf-du-Pape which uses mixtures of many grapes (out of a dozen plus allowed).

You mean variety. A varietal is a wine made from a single variety of grape and labeled as such.

where was I inconsistent? Neither Amarone nor Valpolicella is a varietal wine. Rioja (Tempranillo) is, but is inconsistently labeled.

Edit: Ah, I see, third paragraph. My typo.

I'm sure you could spend a fortune and get a great French wine. But if you find yourself in Italy with just 5€ you can drink something really good.

It's the same with fashion. Gucci and Saks Fifth Ave don't have an increase in quality that can be attributed to the high price over say kohls. But because they charge a high price they seem more valuable, give higher utility to owners and are hence actually become "worth" the higher price

> It's the same with fashion. Gucci and Saks Fifth Ave don't have an increase in quality that can be attributed to the high price over say kohls.

I'm going to disagree a bit. As in many things, the first order of magnitude is a huge jump in quality. After that, the curve drops away.

In clothing the jump from say $5 to $50 is huge. The jump from $50 to $500 is generally quite noticeable, but the marginal increase in utility probably may not be as significant (sometimes it is, though). A jump from $500 to $5000 is generally subtle and is generally signalling behavior except in rare circumstances (men's suits spring to mind--the jump from $500 to about $3-4K feels quite astonishing).

Other goods have a similar curve at different points. The jump in quality from a Stratocaster-type guitar from about $100 or so to $500 is generally an astonishing jump in quality. The jump from $500 to $1000 is generally quite noticeable even to amateur guitar players. The jump from $1000 to $2000 is generally nice, but quite a bit more subtle and you probably have to be somewhat decent at guitar to notice. Above that, and we're back into signalling behavior territory with very marginal increases in actual utility.

> But because they charge a high price they seem more valuable, give higher utility to owners and are hence actually become "worth" the higher price

I feel like you've never owned nice clothing before then.

In every conceivable way, my $500 jacket is nicer than my $50 one. It's noticeably better quality of build, has lasted far longer, looks much better, and is absolutely much nicer.

That being said, it is absolutely possible to spend $500 on clothing which is identical to $50 or $5 variants. That's why you need to do some research before buying.

Luxury goods are not intrinsically bad deals. Probably my favorite purchase ever is a Briggs & Riley suitcase. I've been using it and abusing it for a decade and it still works perfectly.

It really is nothing like fashion.

As mentioned already the quality of the construction and materials is markedly different when you go up the price range. But also the fit and style changes. Mass market clothing targets those with an average body shape whereas in the upmarket stores it will target those with a more model style shape i.e. thinner and taller. For example 99.99% of Americans would simply never fit in the Hedi Slimane era of Saint Laurent clothes. Also the styles such as those from Alexander McQueen are more adventurous which most people would feel uncomfortable wearing.

Wine is experienced the same regardless of age, gender, social class, body shape etc. And you don't feel like an idiot when you are drinking an expensive bottle.

The clothing found in a luxury department store is of noticeably higher quality than that found in a Kohls. There are definitely diminishing returns in how much quality you get for your money though.

On the other hand, the quality differential between markedly more expensive clothing at the Kohls of the world and bargain-basement places like Wal-Mart is neglible.

That is true about some, but not all, luxury brands. Some brands are about social signalling. But quality luxury brands are altogether a different story.

Let me give you a comparative example. I have a few Bally sweathers that I picked up in Geneve in 2000, and they are practically in the same condition as the day I bought them. (And I should add that I have been wearing them every winter season.) Ditto for a couple from Agnès B. circa 2004ish before their men's line went down the drain (imo). In contrast practically every "practical" sweather that I have ever purchased balls up after just a few wearings and turned out to be a waste of money.

Nothing beats quality clothing. You pay more but you get "utility" & style for years.

>In contrast practically every "practical" sweather that I have ever purchased balls up after just a few wearings

Really? I have some ~£20 sweaters that I've been wearing at least once a week for a few years, and yes they're starting to get holes in them now, but it's still a lot more than "a few wearings".

I'd disagree... the price curve gets steeper because higher quality is scarce and valued much higher.

There's nothing intrinsically scarce about higher quality when we are talking about a manufactured product.

Sure there is.

Even small marginal price increases affect sales volume and costs, which has a huge impact on p&l.

Niche high quality brands need high style to justify the cost. Once in awhile you'll find super high quality product at a low price point, but that's almost always an aberration that will be "fixed" in time.

I think the point being made is that this isn't "scarcity", it's just where supply and demand intersect for high quality products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com