I tried Naked Wines: is 12 bottles for £65 worth it?
Having done it for a while now, I can tell you for a fact: the best product in the world to arrive home to is a case of wine.
I've been doing a Naked Wines review, testing out the service, the value for money and, most enjoyably, the quality of the wine.
Get £80 off a case of 12 wines at Naked Wines
BUY HERE
If you've heard of Naked Wines, you'll know that it's famous for its alluring introductory offers — I've received paper vouchers in everything from meal delivery boxes to magazines.
Currently, the brand is offering new customers a massive £80 off a case of 12 wines worth £144.99, bringing the price down to £64.99.
That's less than £6 per bottle — less than you'd spend on a bottle of supermarket swill.
However, the deals can seem a bit too good to be true, and the company's business model can be slightly confusing, so I've nobly quaffed my way through six bottles of wine to find out whether Naked Wines is worth it.
How much is Naked Wines? Prices of individual bottles vary, but you can currently get a box of 12 bottles for £64.99, a discount of £80. You even take a quiz first, so the box is (slightly) tailored to your tastes.
Who's it best for? People who want to discover new wines without paying through the nose.
What we loved: I mean, do I really have to spell it out? It's great wine for less than £6 per bottle. It's also cool that you get tasting notes, serving suggestions, food matches and information on the winemakers, and that the wines themselves aren't available to buy anywhere else.
What we didn't: Predictably, you'll be enrolled onto a £25 per month "Angel" subscription 30 days after you order, but you can cancel any time. And you can cancel online, unlike some other wine subscriptions (I'm looking at you, Wine52). There also seems to be quite a large number of reviewers who experience delays in their deliveries.
How does the Angel membership work?
This is not a wine subscription.
While you will be charged £25 every month, that does not mean that a box of wine will turn up on your door every month without you lifting a finger.
In fact, I have a friend who was unknowingly paying £25 per month into his Naked Wines account for over a year without realising.
By the time he clocked that he was an Angel, he had poured £400 into his account — all without receiving a single bottle of wine.
Instead, you're essentially purchasing and accumulating store credit.
It's like transferring £25 per month of your cash into the currency of a country where wine is cheaper (and nicer).
It's like transferring £25 per month of your cash into the currency of a country where wine is cheaper (and nicer).
While this means you have to stay on top of ordering, there are a couple of advantages as well.
Firstly, it means you can order the amount of wine you think you'll drink every month.
Trying to cut down? Order the minimum six bottles, or none at all.
Planning a party? Use some accumulated credit to stockpile.
Secondly, where wine subscription services send a pre-selected selection of bottles that are chosen without your input — you only get to choose between red, white and mixed — Naked Wine is more of a traditional store.
If you're a fan of Argentinian Malbec, for example, or want to discover the wines of the English Southeast, Naked Wines allows you to do that.
This isn't the case for the introductory offer, though; instead, you fill out a short quiz about your preferences, and Naked Wines will automatically pick out a dozen wines for you.
Are the wines good?
Get £80 off a case of 12 wines at Naked Wines
The best thing about Naked Wines is that the wines you get are usually exclusive to the site.
This is because of the company's funding model.
The reason members are called "Angels" is that they're Angel investors; Naked Wines uses your £25 membership fee to fund independent wineries, and in return, you get great wine at a much lower price than usual.
This is because the model eliminates middlemen, keeping prices low.
Some of the prices on Naked Wines might seem a little misleading; prices are usually displayed something like " £14.99 £12.99".
In reality, nowhere else is charging £15, because there's nowhere else to buy them; these are often relatively small batches of wine, and there isn't enough made to sell through other retailers.
However, the £14.99 is an indication of what similar wines cost from traditional retailers.
The way this process manifests itself in the wine itself is that you feel a lot more invested in each bottle.
Naked Wines provides heaps of information about the wines, from exact Google Maps locations of the vineyards, to in-depth food pairing ideas, to video interviews with the winemakers themselves.
The closest comparison I can think of is that it's like knowing the name, breed and diet of the cow whose steak you're eating, as well as the farm it was bred on and how the grass it ate impacts the flavour of its meat.
And I can tell you, if you knew that much about the steak, you'd savour every bite. It's very much the same with Naked Wine.
Get £80 off a case of 12 wines at Naked Wines
Naked Wines kindly sent me a hand-picked selection for this review, and I drank each bottle with a sort of focus that doesn't feel particularly warranted for a bottle from Tesco Express.
However, I think it's worth pointing out that just because you know that a lovely gentleman named Jacques has made your Sauvignon Blanc on his humbly-sized vineyard in the Loire Valley, that doesn't mean that it's good wine or that you'll enjoy it.
However, the other thing that Naked Wines is good at is fostering a community of users who leave honest, polite reviews, and there seems to be a pretty good algorithm in place for recommending wines based on your tastes.
So whether the wines are good is a subjective choice, but Naked Wines certainly does a good job at creating a system where it's easy to enjoy every bottle.
At this price, certainly.
I can't remember the last time I spent less than £6 on a bottle of wine, so this deal is worth taking advantage of from a financial standpoint alone.
However, it'll also give you a chance to experience the co-operative element of Naked Wine, where you can access endless amounts of information about the wine you're drinking.
There are some things to take into consideration; for example, unless you go onto the website and order the wine, you won't receive any, but you will still be charged £25 per month.
That means that you need to remember to cancel your membership within 30 days of ordering your introductory box, or to periodically go online and spend the money you've deposited in your account.
For the committed wine lover, Naked Wines offers an exclusive, rewarding experience. However, the introductory offer is an unmissable bargain for anyone who enjoys wine.
At less than £6 a bottle, it's a low-risk way to explore independent winemakers and a more thoughtful approach to what's in your glass.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Burghley Capital: BoE Rate Cut Signals Cautious Policy Path
LONDON, United Kingdom, August 13, 2025 (EZ Newswire) -- Burghley Capital, opens new tab positions the Bank of England's latest interest rate decision within the broader context of monetary policy recalibration, noting the complex trade-off between inflation control and growth stability. The Monetary Policy Committee votes by a narrow 5–4 margin to reduce the Bank Rate from 4.25% to 4.00%, a move requiring a second ballot not used since 1997. Sterling appreciates to $1.35 per £1, while short-dated gilt yields edge higher and equity markets close lower, reflecting a rebalancing of expectations for the remainder of the year. Division within the committee highlights differing assessments of the economic outlook Four members support holding rates at 4.25% due to concerns over slowing disinflation and the risk of inflation expectations embedding into wage dynamics. Four others favour a 0.25 percentage point cut, citing evidence of sustained underlying disinflation, while one member initially calls for a 0.50 percentage point cut before aligning with the quarter-point reduction in the final vote. The outcome underscores what Burghley Capital describes as a deliberate, step-by-step policy stance that avoids premature easing. Household impacts are uneven For borrowers on tracker mortgages, a typical outstanding balance of £140,000 (approximately $189,000) translates into monthly repayments falling by about £28.97 (around $39.11). However, 7.1 million of the UK's 8.4 million residential mortgages are fixed-rate, meaning most borrowers will not see immediate payment relief. Burghley Capital's analysis notes that the near-term boost to household spending is therefore likely to be modest. Inflation remains the key constraint on further easing Consumer price inflation reaches 3.6% year-on-year in June 2025, up from 3.4% in May. Food prices rise 4.5% year-on-year, the highest since February 2024, while services inflation stays elevated at 4.7%, reflecting persistent domestic cost pressures. Labour market conditions show early signs of cooling, with unemployment at 4.7% for the three months to May 2025 and the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio slipping below its equilibrium level. Markets respond with a measured repricing of assets The pound strengthens 0.4% against the U.S. dollar to $1.35 and 0.6% against the euro. Two-year gilt yields increase by 6 basis points to 3.887%, reflecting reduced expectations for rapid easing. The FTSE 100 ends lower. According to Burghley Capital's analysis, these moves indicate that while investors see the Bank's decision as measured, they remain cautious about the prospect of further cuts in 2025. Current market consensus anticipates no further adjustments until early 2026 Burghley Capital projects the Bank Rate settling at approximately 3.75% in the first quarter of next year, conditional on continued disinflation and stable employment data. The firm's analysis also highlights a growing divergence between the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, which has enacted eight rate cuts since June 2024, reducing deposit rates by around 50% from their peak. This divergence has potential currency and asset allocation implications for institutional investors. Economic growth indicators present a mixed picture UK GDP is forecast to expand by 1.25% in 2025, up from earlier 1% projections, but quarterly momentum slows sharply from 0.7% in Q1 to 0.1% in Q2. Corporate insolvencies rise 13% between the first and second quarters, while small business confidence remains in negative territory. Burghley Capital's analysis suggests that such conditions favour quality balance sheets, resilient cash flows, and prudent leverage strategies in both public and private markets. Conclusion Burghley Capital concludes that the Bank's cautious, data-dependent approach will remain the dominant feature of UK monetary policy into 2026. The firm notes that rate-sensitive assets, selective credit opportunities, and currency-aware strategies could benefit from this environment, provided investors maintain flexibility and a disciplined approach to capital allocation. About Burghley Capital Founded in 2017, Burghley Capital Pte. Ltd. (UEN: 201731389D) is a Singapore-based global investment management firm specialising in long-only asset management strategies. The firm delivers institutional-grade research, tailored portfolio design, and advisory services to both institutional and private investors. By combining rigorous analytical methods with disciplined investment practices, Burghley Capital seeks to deliver consistent returns and long-term portfolio resilience. For more information, visit opens new tab or our resources page at opens new tab. Media Contact Martin ### SOURCE: Burghley Capital Copyright 2025 EZ Newswire See release on EZ Newswire
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Boosting productivity will be main priority of autumn budget, Reeves says
Rachel Reeves has promised to use her autumn budget to prioritise fixing Britain's dismal record on productivity as she sought to downplay mounting tax speculation with a focus on economic growth. Setting out her priorities for the budget for the first time, the chancellor said tackling the efficiency of the economy through higher investment and a fresh assault on planning rules would form the backbone of her tax and spending plans. Writing exclusively for the Guardian, she said: 'If Labour's first year in power was about fixing the foundations, then the second year is about building a stronger economy for a renewed Britain.' However, Reeves pushed back against what she called 'speculation' over tax increases being explored by the Treasury to close a yawning gap in the public finances that is estimated to reach more than £40bn. 'The months and weeks before any budget are filled with people speculating about – or claiming to know – what tax and spend decisions I will take or what the Office for Budget Responsibility [OBR] will conclude,' she said. 'This budget is no different – I get that. I will set out the decisions I take in the responsible manner.' The chancellor's comments come as the government braces for gloomy official figures that are expected to show the economy narrowly avoided flatlining in the second quarter. With Labour under mounting pressure over its management of the economy, City forecasters predict that Thursday morning's update from the Office for National Statistics will find that GDP rose by 0.1% in the three months to June. The UK outpaced its G7 peers in the first quarter with growth of 0.7%. However, experts have blamed tax increases announced by Reeves in her first budget, last October, and Donald Trump's trade war for a marked hit to activity. The chancellor, aiming to shrug off the anaemic performance, argued the government was taking steps to break a 'cycle of low growth' in which Britain had become trapped under Conservative governments. Laying out one of the central themes of her budget, which could be held in November, Reeves said the government would aim to boost the productive capacity of the economy by allocating investment for infrastructure projects and ripping up planning rules. 'If renewal is our mission and productivity is our challenge, then investment and reform are our tools,' she said. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Earlier on Wednesday, the Guardian revealed that Keir Starmer was preparing to revive plans for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, which would improve transport connections between the main cities of northern England. Reeves has ordered Treasury officials to draw up proposals for slashing additional red tape in the UK's planning system to speed up large infrastructure projects. 'We are providing that investment and unblocking the barriers to it too,' she said. Successive chancellors have pushed to solve what economists refer to as a 'productivity puzzle' that has contributed to the UK's sluggish growth since the 2008 financial crisis. Productivity growth is considered one of the key determinants for raising living standards and wages over the long term. However, progress to drive up the measure of output per hour of work has stalled in recent years. The chancellor's renewed focus comes as the Treasury braces for a potentially devastating downgrade in productivity forecasts from the OBR, which could blow a £20bn hole in the chancellor's tax and spending plans. With the shortfall made worse by a weak growth outlook, higher debt interest payments, and a series of U-turns on welfare cuts, Reeves and the prime minister are laying the groundwork for tax rises and changes from September, before the autumn budget. The Guardian revealed on Tuesday that the Treasury was looking at ways to raise more money from inheritance tax to reduce the deficit. Labour MPs have been pushing the idea of a wealth tax, but changes to inheritance tax thresholds could be similarly controversial. Sarah Coles, the head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said it was 'hardly surprising' that inheritance tax was 'back in the frame'. It is among a limited suite of taxes that can be changed, despite the government's commitment to not increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. 'The system is so fiendishly complex that there are an enormous number of rules, and therefore tweaks, that the government could consider,' Coles added.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Whining about Scottish ‘austerity' is baseless, absurd and idiotic
Like Christmas and birthdays, the annual GERS festival seems to arrive sooner than you think. Has a year really passed since the last edition of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures was published? Why, yes it has. This year's numbers are remarkable, best accompanied by an indecently large dram of cask-strength liquor. For public spending in and for Scotland amounted to 52 per cent of Scottish GDP last year. That is lower than in France, Finland, Belgium and Austria but higher than in every other European country. Public spending in Sweden and Denmark, for instance, equals 48 per cent of GDP. In Norway, the figure is 46 per cent. Further afield, other countries with which the Scottish government sometimes likes to compare Scotland contrive to thrive with a much smaller public sector. Public spending in New Zealand is 42 per cent of GDP. This is the context in which to understand the claims made by Scottish government ministers that Scotland is once again enduring some form of 'austerity'. And the thing to understand about this whining is that it is baseless, absurd and idiotic. This is a country of Big Government. If government departments and other agencies struggle to meet their obligations despite this obvious largesse it is because they are inefficiently or incompetently run and because ministers lack the courage to say 'No' to demands for more and more spending. Mercifully, Scottish taxpayers are not required to pay for all of this. In 2024-25, £91.4 billion was raised in taxes in Scotland but government spending amounted to £117.6 billion. This is a notional deficit — notional because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom — of some £26.5 billion. That is equivalent to 11.7 per cent of GDP. John Swinney should pray to the ghost of the late Joel Barnett every night for it is his eponymous formula that grants Scotland its privileged place within the United Kingdom: a relatively wealthy part of the realm funded as though it were a poor one. By way of illustrating the scale of Scotland's deficit, it may be worthing noting that last year Zimbabwe ran a deficit equal to 10.4 per cent of GDP. Indeed, according to data compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the only independent countries running real deficits greater than Scotland's notional one are East Timor, Kiribati, the Maldives and Ukraine. At this point nationalists will customarily enter the chat to say that, look, GERS only tells us about Scotland's current fiscal position and of course an independent Scotland would do things differently. This is true. GERS offers a snapshot of the position from which an independent Scotland would begin life and GERS also makes it very clear that many things would have to be done very differently in an independent Scotland. To start with you would begin with something like £10 billion in tax increases and around another £10 billion in spending cuts. That would still leave Scotland running a deficit like most countries but it would be a manageable one of around 3 per cent of GDP. That, you will also recall, is the price of admission to the European Union. Every existing tax would doubtless be increased and new taxes created (on this front, if few others, Scotland's political class is endlessly resourceful). But to give an indication of the scale of tax hikes required, £10 billion is about half of total income tax receipts in Scotland last year. Swingeing tax increases of this sort would almost certainly encourage capital flight of a sort this country can ill afford. Just 5 per cent of Britain's top-rate tax-payers live in Scotland which is one reason why although Scotland has 8 per cent of the UK population it contributes just 6.8 per cent of income tax revenue. Tax increases of this sort, however, would only get the job half done. You would still need to cut £10 billion of public spending. That is roughly equivalent to 50 per cent of the NHS budget. Good luck winning an independence referendum on that manifesto. • The facts of life are demanding chiels. It is too often and too easily forgotten that in the years after the 2008 financial crisis Scotland's notional deficit was broadly the same as the UK's real one and, in some years and thanks to buoyant oil revenues, Scotland's relative fiscal position was marginally healthier than the UK's. This was unusual and atypical but it allowed Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon to sell independence as a financial opportunity, not, as it obviously is now, a giant leap into an enormous fiscal black hole. Even then, all lilies had to be gilded. As Sturgeon relates in her new memoir, oil prices were then high but Salmond 'spent a lot of time persuading the government economists to push their projections higher, raking them to the outer edges of credibility'. In other words, the Yes campaign suborned officials to present a fantastical vision of the riches an independent Scotland would enjoy. This is something worth remembering. The SNP are doubtless happy to win without lying but why take that risk when untruths may buttress the liberation cause? Economic self-interest does not always prevail and voters may cheerfully vote for their own impoverishment but, even so, this year's GERS festival is a reminder that the appeal of independence is for the time being strictly notional and hypothetical. That imaginary Scotland is a comfortable place to dwell but the nature of today's fiscal realities is such that even SNP politicians might be wary of asking the national question again. This is why, in the end, they are comfortable not asking it, for no amount of creative accountancy can make these sums add up.
