misleading headlineMoneyish, a website owned by Dow Jones has an article with the following headline “Why you never have to spend more than $10 on wine again.”

Has the article uncovered the holy grail of cheap wine questing, the secret all of us have been seeking since getting into the wine racket? No such luck.

A $6 bottle of red wine sold exclusively at Coles supermarkets in Melbourne is getting rave reviews from oenophiles who gave it a unanimous gold rating during a blind taste test.

The Aussie wine, St. Andrews Cabernet Sauvignon 2016, earned the coveted “double gold” medal from a panel of sommeliers, retail buyers, distributors and exporters at the Melbourne International Wine Competition last week, beating out 1,100 wine submissions from more than 10 countries around the world.

The article continues in this vein reporting one other instance of an inexpensive wine winning a competition against more expensive rivals. Quoting a retail spirits expert we are told

“You don’t have to spend $50 on a bottle to get good wine. People are making good wine all over the world, and not all of it is expensive.”

There’s a stunning conclusion—some cheap wines are good. Who knew? That’s a far cry from showing that all your wine cravings can be satisfied for under $10 a pop. Try it. I guarantee you will be drinking mostly bad wine.

Wine prices are controlled by supply and demand not intrinsic merit. In good vintages there is always good surplus juice around that can be bottled and sold cheaply. And there are a few producers of bargain wines such as Bogle or McManis who care enough about quality to be consistently good. But they are the exception. Furthermore, those consistent bottles of Bogle Merlot are good but not extraordinary, unique or luscious. If you’re satisfied by “good” and you don’t mind drinking the same thing all the time you can find your bargain wine sweet spot and exist there.

But anyone who really likes wine will seldom find nirvana for under $10.