the wine thing is a multipart issue, methinks.
the first thing is: did you enjoy the wine?
if you did not enjoy the wine, pretty much any cost is "over valued", no?
if you did enjoy the wine, then comes the question of "value" - was it really super, or just so-so?
and multipart next is the personal perception of "worth / value"
if you're fabulously wealthy and it makes no never-mind whether the tab is $200 or $2000 per person, well - you paid the tab, either you drank the wine or left the glass mostly full, and who cares?
if you're professionally flipping burgers at minimum wage and you take your main squeeze out for a special dinner plunking down $100 for a bottle of wine that tastes awful, my bet is there's not a lot of perceived value there . . . .
next multipart is: and exactly who said this was fantastic?
there's hundreds of wine "competitions" every year all over the world involving thousands and thousands of "wine experts / critics."
in the absolute worst wine production year in history for any given region, somebody's get a gold medal.
is "the best of the worst" really "good?"
pity the poor food and wine critic.
they spend their professional lives looking for 'something new and different." what is outstandingly different and spectacular to them may turn your personal taste buds to mush.
once upon a time we went to Aureole in Las Vegas - home of the famous Wine Angels.
wine card musta' been an inch-and-half plus thick - with (as I recall) only three entries less than $1,000 / bottle.
ruined my dinner experience, dunno about yours.