Is a $2,000 Champagne Really Worth It?


(Jason Brandt Lewis) #1

From Food & Wine online: The newly released 2000 Krug Clos D’Ambonnay Brut Champagne . . . (article continues at length)


(Natascha) #2

That’s pretty subjective. For me personally? No way.


#3

I had to ask a similar question when we helped someone sell his recent allocation of Screaming Eagle at $2200 a bottle. IMHO, it IS if you’re comfortable paying that much. It’s YOUR money not mine. Just don’t think too much about all the malnourished people around the world while you’re enjoying the bubbly. When that Russian guy bought his daughter Aaron Spelling’s Bel Air house for something like $32million I was shocked, but at least it’s real estate and isn’t gone forever when you drink it.


(John) #4

These things are for people who live in a different financial reality. They dont have to choose. If I had 2K to blow it would be a weekend in Paris over a glass of bubbly.


#5

if you lived a different life, it could be a weekend in paris AND several bottles of that krug. :wink:

just sayin’.


(John) #6

Well i would serve nothing less on the private jet. Some good bubbly certainly takes the edge off of a transatlantic voyage.


#7

now you’re talking. :slight_smile:


(Jason Brandt Lewis) #8

Exactly!

That’s the thing about this “modern economy” that I just don’t understand, I guess. I grew up in Beverly Hills¹, albeit admittedly on the “wrong side of the tracks,” however. But I remember, when I got into the trade, Moët & Chandon Dom Pérignon was $18.10/btl., Louis Rogederer Cristal was $17.95, and Taittinger Comtes de Champagne was $19.25 – and those were the three most expensive Champagnes in the marketplace at the time.

Sure, most real estate is ridiculously over-priced (then again, people are still paying it, so maybe not), but – you’re quite right – at least you have something to show for your millions. ;^) But a bottle of wine is gone when you drink it, and – aside from the memory of (hopefully) enjoying the bottle – it’s now worthless. I can’t see throwing $2,000 out the window, or tossing it into the fireplace . . .

Exactly! Each of us has certain price limits inside us within which we are comfortable buying something, and beyond which we aren’t. But it’s always struck me that, above a certain price limit, you are no longer buying wine for what’s inside the bottle, but for the label that’s ON the bottle . . . and what that label tells OTHER people about you.

Unfortunately, for me, that label tells me who foolish the buyer is . . .

Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to taste it, but I won’t spend my money on a bottle, or even a glass! But every few years, I will splurge on a bottle of n.v. m.v. Krug "Grande Cuvée.


¹ For those of you not familiar with the layout of Beverly Hills, there used to be a set of railroad tracks that ran between “Little” Santa Monica and “Big” Santa Monica Blvds. Above the tracks were the homes of the “old” monied elite, while above Sunset Blvd. were those of the “new” money – the nouveau riche, if you will. But below the tracks was the business district, and below Wilshire were the true Middle Class, living in single family homes, duplexes, and apartments.


(Natascha) #9

I think even if I had that kind of money to throw around/away, I’d still be hard-pressed finding value in a $2000 of bubbly. You’re absolutely right about paying for the label (= status symbol).

But then I’m not rich, never will be, and thus will never understand what it would be like. The rich are a different people, period.


#10

When I was a kid I lived on Oakhurst, between Beverly Blvd. and Little Santa Monica, then on Holt @ Burton Way (near the old Dolores’ drive-in). We’re from the same ‘hood’.


#11

I wander those who has the $2000 for it actually has the knowledge and great understanding in champagne… I once read an horrible article how the grand cru is mixed with soft drinks at parties.

Naa, not for me either even if I had that money.