There are people for whom the difference between $50 and $500 is not worth noticing -- just as, for most of us, the difference between 5 cents and 50 cents isn't worth noticing. This is what enables people to justify buying $500 wines.

I figure that, no matter how wonderful a wine is (and of course wonderfulness is not just subjective, but a matter of taste), it's only going to be in my mouth for a short time -- maybe, over the course of a fancy dinner, with one bottle split between two people, a couple of hours. On a very special occasion, spending a lot of money on wine or a dinner can be part of the fun -- there's that sense of extravagance. For example, I took my husband to lunch at The French Laundry for his 40th birthday (cost for a meal for two, $450 -- it would have been more, but I was pregnant and only had a sip or two of wine). Afterwards, people asked me "was it worth it?" The answer, of course, is that it's worth it if you think it's worthy it, but that depends not only on the desired object's quality and on your taste, but on how much a given amount of money means to you. We very much enjoyed our meal, and we're not going back any time soon -- maybe when he turns 50. For some people, no meal could ever be worth that amount of money. For others, a decimal place or two is nothing to worry about.

Is a $20 wine twice as good as a $10 generic?

Sure.

What about a $50 bottle -- twice as good as something in the $20 range?

Probably -- but not always.

At $100, will I taste twice the goodness of a $50 bottle?

Probably not. It will be "better" -- but not twice as good.

$200, twice as good as $100?

Certainly not. More like better nuances on the same theme.

More than $200?

Well, now you're in the territory of paying a whole lot more for very, very little extra.

Every engineer of every stripe, every scientist, surely every intelligent person on the planet knows this Law.

How is it that every wine article ever written uses three or more adjective-strewn pages explaining what can be summed up in a sentence?

The only thing worth reading in this piece was the 50-year-old-plus quote by Thurber.

Jesus.

Anyone spending $50 on a bottle of wine, let alone $500, should be placed in a newly created 80% income tax bracket.

Maybe a bit off-subject, but... Oh for those halcyon days of the mid 1960's when a poor young army officer could afford both an American wife on-post in Germany, and a few bottles of the local Mosel wines every month. Not crap, but good local wines at Baumholder, in the PX. Mostly normal estate wines of 1963 or 4 vintage for $1.50, but Spatleses for $2 or a bit more, and Ausleses for about $3. Leave that for special times, or higher ranks. Now I get a lot less for a lot more. Good times; good times. And Republicans were not in charge. I spent two weeks on one exercise in Iran in 1964, so I can appreciate Iraqi hell with the desert weather.

Get our troops out to a place where they can kick back and relax, and enjoy the relative luxury we had in the mid-1960's when confronting the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.

Send the whole Repuglican gang to the Hague for trial.

Cranky old Zafod at 65

For some people, wine is an enjoyable hobby, even a passion. If I choose to spend money on wine, that's my business. I'm sure I could find hobbies/interests of yours I wouldn't spend one thin dime on.

My bills get paid, my dog doesn't lack for treats or medicine due to my wine expenditures.

The argument according to which spending on wine is disputable because wine only stays in your mouth for a few seconds is moot.

Cooking a good meal for 4: 3 to 6 hours and about $150 to $300, including selecting and buying food and drinks, choosing the recipes, preparing the food, setting the table. Eating said meal: 30 to 60 minutes. A lot of people like giving dinners for their friends or family nonetheless.

Finding a sexual partner for the night in a club: 1 to 6 hours and about $150 to $800, including selecting and buying attire and scents, getting a haircut, paying the door price for the club, choosing the potential mate, catching his or her attention. A lot of people like having sex nonetheless.

All we do as humans is invest a lot of time to secure pleasures that last way less than the time spent in preparation for them.

I am surprised at the sharp responses to this article. The author wasn't critical of cult wines or their followers, just making the undeniable point that wine price is no guarantor of, well, anything. Never mind that a $500 wine isn't 10x better than a $50 wine; a $500 wine may not even be GOOD. The best are awesome, but so are the best wines at lower price points. The happy upshot is that one not need be wealthy to enjoy fabulous wine.

What I would add to this article is that all cabernet is not from Napa or France, and not all wine is cab. Other varietals from other parts of the world can be dazzling at price points many wine snobs would sniff at. Try a South American malbec or carmenere, or a merlot or syrah from Washington. Such wines can be had for under $10, and even wine critics agree that they are world class. The South American wines in particular seem to combine the best of the old and new worlds: rich and fruity without being over the top like many Californian or Australian wines, yet dry and interesting without the austerity of French wines. A previous respondent argued that $20 wines are twice as good as $10 wines, but this is nonsense. Most of the best wines I drink cost between $8 and $12, and there is nothing missing from them that can be found in wines at considerably higher price points. I did recently have a bottle of Justin Isosceles, not a Napa but a high end cab-blend nonetheless, and it WAS more elegant and sophisticated than a typical mass produced bottling. I will drink it again when the occasion calls for it. In the meantime, I will take it easy on my budget while still drinking outstanding wine several nights per week.