Why don't all wines cost $10 or less?
That's the question in the back of our minds in this season of wine sales.
The factors are many and varied, but let's start with other material goods:
The land: Many, if not most, wineries bought the acreage on which their vineyards are planted and their facilities built. The only way to recoup that money is to factor it into what they charge for their wines. In Napa, land can go for up to $400,000 an acre. One reason wines from Europe and South America often cost less is that the land either was cheap or has long since been paid for by families that have owned it for generations.
The labor: From the blue-collar pickers and white-collar administrators to the sales force and highly paid winemakers or consultants, salaries and benefits generally are covered by the operation's primary (if not sole) revenue producer: fermented grape juice.
The equipment: That same formula applies to buildings (and utilities), grape crushers, fermentation tanks, bottling lines, etc. Even for those who rent machinery, it ain't cheap. And then there are the barrels: A 55-gallon French oak barrel can cost up to $1,500, which comes to $5.43 for each bottle that emerges from it.
Marketing: That flowery prose on the back label, packaging designs, ads in magazines and on apps, and those trips vintners make to different cities — yes, even to Tundraland, and even in February — require dollars.
The grapes: Bulk wines — basically anything under $10 retail — come from thickly planted vineyards (yielding up to 25 tons an acre). Spendier wines emanate from more coveted, meticulously tended properties, where they may prune grape clusters from the vines to make the end product more concentrated (yielding one to a few tons per acre). A general rule of thumb is that a bottle of wine is a denominator of the grape expenditures: Lop off the last two zeroes from the price per ton. So grapes that cost $400 a ton should result in a $4 bottle, while $8,000-a-ton lots would be $80. Except for …