how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB

CellarTracker Main Site

how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Cellar Talk] >> General Discussion >> how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/1/2021 12:15:53 AM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

For left bank red Bordeaux I divide the price per bottle worth paying by 1.108 for each point down, and by the square root of 1.108 (1.0526) for each half-point down.

I saw a "QPR" article of c. 2006 which gave the average price for 85 point wines (bottom of 5th growths) as $25, and the average price for 88 point wines (bottom of 3rd growths) as $34. [Both left and right bank Bordeaux wines were included, but equal scores should mean equal quality and value.] 34/25=1.36, the 1/3 root of which equals 1.108.

For higher scores the prices seemed progressively more and more out of line (too high).

I tried the 1.108 on relative values in the early 1820s, in 1845, in a study from 1982 t0 2003 (excluding 4 poor years) with 2002-3 being barrel ratings, and in a study I did myself with Wine Advocate ratings from 2002-2014 (all bottle ratings) excl. 2013.

The 1.108 worked very well in each case, with the best fits being 1.108, 1.107 and 1.109 .

It seems very possible that something like a quality-value rating for properly ranked classes has stayed fairly constant. The quality-price relationship has gotten way out of line for the first growths.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/1/2021 11:53:58 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/1/2021 2:37:26 AM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

I think what you are saying is that, on average, for Left Bank Red Bordeaux, an increase in one Parker Point increases the price by a factor of 1.108.

Another way of saying it, perhaps easier to understand by most people, is that an increase in 1 PP increases the average price by 10.8%.

An equation that says that could be written in two ways:

ETA: These equations are wrong, see corrected equations n a post below.

Price = A * PP ^ 1.108 (where A is a constant)
or
Log (Price) = K + 1.108 PP (where K is another constant)

Where:
Price is the average price of Right Bank Claret rated at a given PP number of Parker Points.
A and K are constants to be determined. Probably the constants in the equation would be valid only for a specific vintage, and for a specific point in time when you recorded the prices of the wines. This would give a number of options for trying to estimate these relationships, for example you could estimate each year separately, or all together.

The second form of the equation is one that a statistician would prefer to try and make an estimate of the relationship. There's a lot of technicalities we could go into around doing it "properly" as a statistician would see it, and indeed options also, but I won't go into that, not now anyway.

You say that 10.8% has been very constant, varying from 10.7% to 10.9%. That is exceedingly little variation to experience in any kind of price relationship study of this kind. It implies that the wine market is quite surprisingly efficient and consistent.

I've often had a yen to explore this relationship myself, and I am interested to hear that something like it has already been done. What I would have done initially is try to estimate the how much the price per PP increases as you go up the scale. I had no preconception there would be a logarithmic relationship, indeed my prejudice was against it. The relationship you describe is a standard functional form that statisticians reach for pretty fast in this kind of study. I had not expected it would work in this case. My preconception was that the price per PP becomes large above about 94 or 95, much faster than that relationship describes.

The implication of the relationship you describe is that the price roughly doubles for about 7 PPs. (1.108^7 = 2.05, the closest to 2 that you can hit). I can just about believe that might be true going from 85 to 92. And maybe that is where the predominance of the data points lie, and so tends to determine the fit. I would be surprised if going from 90 to 97 the price only doubles. Maybe that's what you are saying. Maybe in the past the price did only double for that improvement in quality. I'd be surprised if it did today.

The think that has always put me off doing this kind of thing is the annoyance of getting the data. I don't subscribe to any kind of service that might allow me to download a dataset. If you have a dataset you could share with me, I'd be very interested to play around with it for a bit, and see what I can conclude from it. This kind of thing lies within my professional expertise.

< Message edited by Echinosum -- 11/3/2021 5:35:12 PM >

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 2

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/1/2021 8:26:37 AM

hankj

Posts: 4672
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

There's an often repeated dialogue about how returns diminish as points approach 100, and why, and if that is personally tolerable. It could be pasted in right here.

But for me the most important take on this is that I would never, ever remotely entertain thinking about wine as a two-dimensional, perfectly and easily measurable economic widget. I'd rather pour it all down the drain then have that be my headspace about my wine collection.

Edit to say upon re-reading this came off as harsher that I intended! Not trying to lay into anyone's process - it's your wine, parse however makes you happy. For me I'd never find a purchasing sweet spot by way of statistical analysis, wine is too variable label to label and vintage to vintage. I'm sure I'd dislike 80% of what the formula pointed me towards, and I buy my wine to drink, not resell .....

< Message edited by hankj -- 11/1/2021 5:46:49 PM >

_____________________________

There are those who'd call us a bunch of sots but we don't see ourselves like that. We see ourselves as hobbyists. - Kevin Barry

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 3

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/1/2021 9:23:00 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, the price is not raised by 10.8% for each Parker point, alas. The best left bank red Bordeaux, IMHO, is usually extremely over-priced. At the low end there are many bargains, but my wife and I (and our friends) prefer to drink wines with a score of 90.5 and up by me, and like 92.5 and up wines more. I have been able to find a few wines that I score 95.5 to 97 at what I consider reasonable prices (I use Wine Searcher a lot).

It took considerable effort to find a scoring range for classified growths [from the 1982-2003 study, no longer on the internet (I did print it out)]. I relied on 2 books for information about early 1820s and 1845 relative left bank red Bordeaux prices.

Let me know if you would like some of my data etc. (all of it would take me too long, I am afraid).

I consider the relationship to be one of quality-value rather than of quality-price [maybe quality-correct theoretical price would do].

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/1/2021 11:56:44 PM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 4

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/1/2021 9:31:20 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

hankj, I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I only buy a wine in quantity if I really like it, and I just use the calculations (which are very simple) in determining if the price is reasonable.

(in reply to hankj)

Post #: 5

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/2/2021 3:31:03 AM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rthpal
Echinosum, the price is not raised by 10.8% for each Parker point, alas.
...
It took considerable effort to find a scoring range for classified growths [from the 1982-2003 study, no longer on the internet (I did print it out)].

I am happy to agree that is unlikely to be the case today.

But the only interpretation I can place on those parts of your orginal post that mentioned the number 1.108 is what I said. If my equations are wrong, perhaps you can correct them. You indicate a considerable degree of arithmetical skill in carrying out your own data processing. Or perhaps the article you mention has some such equations in it you can copy out and check against mine.

One way you could share the study would be to photograph or scan the pages of it. Maybe you could do that and place the photos somewhere the interested could download them? Such as a photoshare site? Or I could send you a Private Message (PM) through the forum to give you my email address?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rthpal
Let me know if you would like some of my data etc. (all of it would take me too long, I am afraid).

I was hoping your data might be in electronic form, as apparently you have analysed it? I don't want to put you to typing up data if it is not already electronic, that would be asking too much. If it is on paper, then maybe you could do the same thing as with the paper, photograph it or scan it and send it to an email address I send you by PM?

Many thanks.

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 6

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/2/2021 7:42:11 PM

CranBurgundy

Posts: 8272
Joined: 1/5/2016
From: Philly / South Joizey
Status: offline

I thought the only sane time to pay down points is when you get a mortgage.

_____________________________

Purple Drankin' Cretin.

Vote NO on Proposition S1ct1516 "BAN the CRAN!" this Election Day.

“Let it be recorded: henceforth, December 15 shall be known as 'The Day of Dennis'.” - Prof. Ken "KPB" Birman, 12/17/23

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 7

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 12:33:01 AM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, I am afraid that the material I used is not in electronic form, and I am not handy with computers. The first study is very long, but I could summarize it. The second study is not short but it again could be summarized. I could let you know the relevant part of the books I mention, which would not be long. I did get your private message, and I hope you will take this as a response to it. I have had a very tiring day and tomorrow and the next day are expected to be busy.

The article I mentioned gives no equations, but all the math involved is very simple.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/3/2021 10:47:29 AM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 8

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 3:05:33 AM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

Rthpal
You have been very kind, and I absolutely don't want you to put yourself to any great effort on my behalf.

But maybe I could ask you could give sufficient details of the articles, the usual citation, title, author, date, book title if in book? Then those of us that might be interested in following this up could try to track them down for themselves?
Thanks again.

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 9

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 11:33:59 AM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, thanks for the message. In "Wines of the World" [1967, edited by Andre L. Simon, and per Simon] it is stated that up to 1820 the practice of the Bordeaux trade had been to recognize four main grades of Medoc crus, paying for the second growths approximately a fourth less than the price paid for the first; for the third, one-fifth less than the price paid for the second; and for the fourth, one-fifth less than the price paid for the third. In 1824, it is stated, Wm. Franck (in his Traite sur les vins du Medoc) placed in a fifth class the crus previously known in Bordeaux as "deuxiemes quatriemes crus" ("second fourths") and this division was adopted, in 1855, for the official classification.

In "The Wines of Bordeaux" (2004) by Clive Coates, M.W. on page 48 Wilhelm Franck's 1845 classification is mentioned. In it Lafite is given as second among the first growths. Coates also stated on page 48 re prices: "so a lowly cinquieme (5th) would earn 40 percent of a Chateau Lafite". Coates added that "today" (re 2002) the spread is greater, with Grand-Puy-Lacoste (patently above its 1855 station) fetching barely one-quarter the price of the Firsts [Grand-Puy-Lacoste is a high-ranked fifth].

Since 2002 prices of the First Growths have grown much more out of line.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/4/2021 11:04:54 AM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 10

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 4:16:08 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum In the 1845 classification given by Coates Lafite ranked 2nd of the first growths, while in the 1982-2003 study the lowliest 5th averaged 85.1 . In that study the second ranked first growth averaged 94.1, a difference of 9 points.

The ninth root of 40% equals 1/1.107 .

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 11

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 4:30:19 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, I have already mentioned how I derived the 1.108 .

In the 1982-2003 study the first growths averaged 93.8, the second growths averaged 90.96, and the third growths averaged 88.86 .

Following Simon, for the "fourth growths" I took an average of the study's fourth growths (quatriemes) and fifth growths (deuxiemes quatriemes, later cinquiemes).

In the study the fourth growths averaged 87.38 and the fifth growths averaged 85.76 . The average of these two figures is 86.57 .

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 12

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 5:10:29 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, I am sending short messages because when I tried combining messages I was told the process took too long.

Per Simon page 34 (up to 1820) for portion of value of 100 point wine:

Average first = 1/1.108 to the power of 6.2 = .5295 [6.2= 100 -93.8: other classes similarly below].

Average 2nd = 1/1.08 to the power of 9.24 = .3957, which equals 75% of .5295 .

Average 3rd = 1/1.108 to the power of 11.14 = .3190, which equals 60% of .5295 . 60%/75% equals 80% .

Average "4th" = 1/1.108 to the power of 13.43=.2522, which equals 48% of .5295. 48%/60% equals 80% .

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 13

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 5:33:51 PM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rthpal

Echinosum In the 1845 classification given by Coates Lafite ranked 2nd of the first growths, while in the 1982-2003 study the lowliest 5th averaged 85.1 . In that study the second ranked first growth averaged 94.1, a difference of 9 points.

The ninth root of 40% equals 1/1.107 .

That is just what I understood. Unfortunately I now see I made a very silly mistake when I wrote down my equations for it, I wrote the exponentiation backwards. No wonder you were confused. I do apologise.

It should be:

Price = A * 1.107 ^ PP

You didn't like it when I said one PP increase resulted in a price increase of 10.7%, but let me show you that is exactly the same situation as you describe.

If you start with a price of 0.4, and increase it by 10.7%, you get 0.4 * 1.107. If you increase it by 10.7% nine times, you get 0.4 * 1.107^9 = 1.0

So the way I described it is equivalent to how you described it.

Now we can work out the constant A to complete the formula, and it comes to A = 7.00 * 10 ^ (-5). You will find the equation works as I predict.

Price = (7.00 * 10 ^ (-5)) * 1.107 ^ PP

If you put PP = 85.1 into that, you get Price = 0.4
If you put PP = 94.1 into that you Price = 1.0

The correct logarithmic form of the equation is
Log (Price) = Log (A) + PP * Log (1.107)

Apologies again for making those errors and misleading you. But hopefully now you can see I did correctly understand you the first time, even if I failed to convert my thoughts to equations properly. Your more detailed explanation makes it quite clear.

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 14

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 6:01:07 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, from the foregoing it will be seen that dividing by 1.108 per point down works very well for the 1982-2003 study.

However using that study and Simon page 34 (up to 1820) equations for each pair of adjacent classes gives an average of dividing by 1.107 per point down.

For example, for first and second growths, if 1/x to the power of 2.84 equals .75, 2.84 ln (1/x) = ln .75 = -.2877. Therefore ln (1/x) = -.1013. 1/x=.9037, so x=1.107 .
[2.84 = 93.8 - 90.96 .]

In my later study [2002 to 2014 excl. 2013, all bottle ratings], calculated averages for the suggested growths are 94.74 for first growths, 91.94 for second growths, 89.77 for 3rd growths, 88.23 for fourth growths, and 87.01 for fifth growths. For "Simon" fourth growths an average of 88.23 and 87.01 gives 87.62 .

For Simon page 34 (up to 1820) for portion of value of 100 point wine:

Average first growth = 1/1.108 to the power of 5.26 = .5831 [5.26 = 100 - 94.74: other classes similarly below]

Average second growth = 1/1.108 to the power of 8.06 = .4375, which = 75% of .5831 .

To be continued later.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/4/2021 11:11:21 AM >

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 15

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 10:49:04 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, I did not mind it when you said each PP increases the price by 10.7 % (it is either that or 10.8% theoretically).

To continue with my last post, average third growth = 1/1.108 to the power of 10.23 = .3502, which = 60% of .5831 .
60%/75% = 80% .

Average "Simon" fourth growth = 1/1.108 to the power of 12.38 = .2809, which = 48% of .5831 .
48%/60% = 80%.

Using the above ratings, and using Simon p.34 (up to 1820) equations for each pair of adjacent classes, gives an average of x 1.109 per point higher,

To 4 significant figures, the average of 1.108, 1.107, 1.107 and 1.109 is 1.108.

While there may have been changes in terroir and grape varieties, and in wine-making methods and climate, very possibly the DIFFERENCE in points between properly ranked classes has been consistent.

The relative prices for different classes up to 1855 thus seem reasonable, much more so than today (one can find welcome anomalies).

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/4/2021 12:54:32 AM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 16

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/3/2021 11:23:47 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, I thought I would conclude by giving the minima for various growth classifications used in both "studies".

In the 1982-2003 study(omitting 4 poor years, 2002 and 2003 being barrel ratings) the respective minima were: first growths 92.5, second growths 90.0, third growths 88.0, fourth growths 86.5 and fifth growths 85.0 .

in the 2002-2014 study (omitting 2013, all ratings being bottle ratings) the respective minima were : first growths 93.5, second growths 91.0, third growths 89.0, fourth
growths 87.5 and fifth growths 86.0 .

In the first study the lowest ranked first growth, Mouton Rothschild, averaged 92.9, and the suggested minimum for first growths was 92.5 .

In the second study Mouton Rothschild averaged 93.9, so the suggested minimum for first growths might be 93.5 .

Empirically I noticed that the ratings for Latour and Lafite Rothschild, the 2 highest scoring wines, were very close to 100 -1/2(100 - Wine Advocate Vintage Rating for St.Julien/Pauillac/St.Estephe). The second study had a better average vintage rating by very close to 2, so an increase of 1 is made for the various growth minima. I have edited this paragraph to correct an appalling error in the first sentence. 1/2(100 + relevant Wine Advocate Vintage Rating) would do.

Leoville Poyferre averaged 93.8 for the period of the second study, and so far as I could tell averaged exactly the same as Mouton Rothschild for 2001-2014 (excl. 2013).

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/9/2021 3:23:36 PM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 17

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/4/2021 3:09:05 AM

Echinosum

Posts: 604
Joined: 1/28/2021
From: Buckinghamshire, UK
Status: offline

Rthpal
You have very kindly summarised the results. I'll have a think about what I see in fromt of me. At first glance it looks very interesting.

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 18

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/4/2021 2:53:13 PM

forceberry

Posts: 908
Joined: 8/4/2017
From: Finland
Status: offline

Oh christ, it's that Wine Berserkers madness all over again.

Richard seems to go around every wine forum in the internet, one by one, spreading the word on his ground-braking formula of Left-Bank Bdx, their scores and their prices. Based on my experience, the more you hear, the less it makes sense.

_____________________________

Check my blog and join me in my search for rare and unknown grape varieties and wine styles!
My CT profile

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 19

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/4/2021 10:47:09 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Just when I thought this was a polite forum!

If you understand what I am saying, I welcome constructive criticism. If you do not understand, I welcome polite enquiries.

I have been unlucky enough to have heard from Otto Forsberg previously, on another forum.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/5/2021 2:21:02 PM >

(in reply to forceberry)

Post #: 20

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/4/2021 10:56:31 PM

CranBurgundy

Posts: 8272
Joined: 1/5/2016
From: Philly / South Joizey
Status: offline

Steel Cage Match - Otto vs. Richard!

_____________________________

Purple Drankin' Cretin.

Vote NO on Proposition S1ct1516 "BAN the CRAN!" this Election Day.

“Let it be recorded: henceforth, December 15 shall be known as 'The Day of Dennis'.” - Prof. Ken "KPB" Birman, 12/17/23

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 21

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/4/2021 10:57:41 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

You are welcome, Echinosum. Based on equal weighting of the 2 studies, I have recently posted twice about an attempt to reclassify left bank red Bordeaux.

I would be very interested in your opinion of the results, if you have time.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/4/2021 11:06:18 PM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 22

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 11/10/2021 7:08:37 AM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

Echinosum, From the foregoing it appears that I would add 10.8% or 10.7% for each point up from 85 to 100 for LBRB. and divide by 1.108 or 1.107 for each point down from 100 to 85 [adding 5.26% for each half-point up, and dividing by 1.0526 for each half-point down, if using 10.8%.].

The maximum price to pay per each CT category is for each person to decide.

Unfortunately we have no wines in CT's 98-100 category (though I think the 2018 Domaine de Chevalier Rouge might eventually score 98). I console myself that Robert Parker said that scores of 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 depended largely on the mood of the taster when tasting them. I have occasionally noticed a difference of 4 points in a wine tasted in a very good mood and one tasted in a "neutral" mood. I try to score wines when in the latter,

On 11/21/21 I gave the 2018 D de C 98 points, I am happy to say.

< Message edited by rthpal -- 11/24/2021 10:07:25 PM >

(in reply to Echinosum)

Post #: 23

RE: how much less to pay for each point less for LBRB - 12/7/2021 10:17:38 PM

rthpal

Posts: 695
Joined: 10/25/2021
From: Santa Barbara area
Status: offline

I do not think I have emphasized nearly enough that my "method" is for THEORETICALLY CORRECT prices, not actual ones. The latter seem to be way out of line at the high end, while at the low-end bargains abound. Fortunately, one can find quite a few welcome anomalies, and great or near-great wines can be found at "bargain" prices.

(in reply to rthpal)

Post #: 24