Boycott Bordeaux! (and others)

[Busboy]

A friend of mine recently forwarded and offering of 2005 Bordeaux futures: $6600 for Haut Brion, $7500 for Lafitte and so on. Case prices. Futures. How much is this stuff going to cost by the time it comes to a wine shop or restaurant near you?

And Bordeax is hardly alone in this highway robbery, Burgundy, California, Australia...$20 wines now cost $40; $40 wines cost $150; $150 wines cost $600, gargiste fruit-bomb hundred pointers now cost more than a small car. I'm not poor, but the odds of ever enjoying another bottle of, say, Chateu d'Ychem, as I once could do on occasion, are fast lengthening.

There's only one hope, one that will benefit us all: a two-year boycott of all wines that cost over $40 retail or $100 in a restaurant. Let's let the Chambertins overflow the caves of Beaune and the Granges sit on the docks of New South Wales for 24 months, let the cellars of snooty steakhouses grow crowded with obscure Cabernets and Old Vine Zins, and lables of Eisweins and Tokajis grow dusty and yellow on the shelves of upmarket liquor stores.

In the mean time, we'll search the world for new champions, in Argentina and Greece and California's more obscure hillsides and valleys, showering money and respect on producers who bring passion to their art and respect to their pricing.

And when the laws of supply and demand bring prices down from criminal to merely absurd; when we've struck a blow for the common man, to whom we're always denying that wine is a snotty hobby for the titled and rich, why, then we'll decant a Parker-anointed superstar and have a fine old time.

First bottle's on me.

[Daniel Rogov]

I do agree that Bordeaux prices have entered the strata that we can consider ludicrous, but extending that argument to all wines over a certain price limit may not be quite fair. May I remind us all that in 1920 the Model T Ford was selling for US$ 300 (the equivalent to approximately $3,300 in todays dollars), that as recently as 1955 a cup of coffee (including refills) could be had for five cents......

Eliminating comparative and historical pricing should we thus also ban Lamborghini cars, Beluga caviar, Perigord truffles, women's dresses that cost more than $18.00, men's shoes that cost more than $12.00..........

As to Bordeaux, 2005, my own suggestion is to pass on nearly all futures and to wait until the wines are released, very probably at the same prices as futures are now going for, when we can actually taste these wines and then decide if the investment is worth our personal while.

[Busboy]

I do agree that Bordeaux prices have entered the strata that we can consider ludicrous, but extending that argument to all wines over a certain price limit may not be quite fair.  May I remind us all that in 1920 the Model T Ford was selling for US$ 300 (the equivalent to approximately $3,300 in todays dollars), that as recently as 1955 a cup of coffee (including refills) could be had for five cents......

Eliminating comparative and historical pricing should we thus also ban Lamborghini cars, Beluga caviar, Perigord truffles, women's dresses that cost more than $18.00, men's shoes that cost more than $12.00..........

As to Bordeaux, 2005, my own suggestion is to pass on nearly all futures and to wait until the wines are released, very probably at the same prices as futures are now going for, when we can actually taste these wines and then decide if the investment is worth our personal while.

←

Surely you understand that shoes, dresses and Lamborghinis are luxury items while good wine is a necessity. And that, unlike Model T owners, today we can drive 75 miles an hour in air-conditioned luxury while cranking the Grateful Dead (or Berlioz) at unhealthy decible levels for months at a time without even routine maintenance. As for the difference between the 2005 Mouton and the 1982 my wife bought me for Christmas at the then-outrageous price of $100? Not so much.

The price level mechanism is indeed a bit imprecise, but it has the advantage of being simple.

[JohnL]

I have basically stopped buying first growth Bordeaux years ago.

Unfortunately (or fortunately really) the world's economy is pretty robust and wine being a business venture is benefitting.

There are few "hidden" bargains as the wine press and the growing interest in wine among consumers has led to the uncovering of most really fine wines that see rapid growth in pricing as they are 'discovered."

There are plenty of wines for the "common man." There always have been but currently there are more well made interesting wines at relatively low prices available from more places in the world than ever before. (also a result of the rising tide generated by the high priced wines).

"Finding producers who "bring passion, art and respect to their pricing" is not the answer--because prices are established by supply and demand --not the producers.

Given the cost to produce and sell fine wines--a producer who prices his or her wines based upon altruism will soon be out of business. also--the producer is not really responsible for the final retail prices of their wines (most of the California "so called "Cult" wines are pretty reasonable when released--it is demand--the auction prices and retailers etc who are--becaise of the demand--setting the prices we see.

Your call for a 'boycott" in order to reduce demand is fine but basically it wont work--there are just too many people around the world who have the wherewithal to afford the acclaimed wines like Bordeaux first growths. as I noted I, for one, have stopped buying many wines I enjoy and have searched for others that I can afford.

However, it is all relative--fine Malbecs (the best) from Argentina are up around a hundred bucks a bottle now and will go higher as more people like me "discover" them as alternatives to two hundred dollar bottles from Bordeaux.

Basically people like me are driving up the prices and soon the folks who drive the prices of Bordeaux and Burgundy will take over and drive up the prices of the wines I am enjoying--ahh! The cycle of wine life!!!

I jumped on Viader wines at $40 when other Cal wines I had been enjoying were priced out of my range--soon enough the Viaders were up to $80 then $100 as more people (with more money) found them too!

anyway--good luck with your boycott (I really don't believe you are serious--you are probably letting off some steam).

Remember it's all relative!

--back in seventy five or so--one could buy Chateau Latour or Margaux for twenty bucks a bottle and one could buy a really nice new car for less than five thousand dollars. One also made a hundred dollars a week.

Personally, I am also boycotting Mercedes Benz and BMW as well as Latour and Margaux!!!!

La Di La Di--Life goes on!!!!

[Sneakeater]

Surely you understand that shoes, dresses and Lamborghinis are luxury items while good wine is a necessity. 

←

In the unlikely event you're not kidding, surely you understand that you don't get to define luxury goods as necessities just because you like them a lot.

[Sneakeater]

I never can understand these proposed boycotts of expensive items. If all the people who can't afford something agree not to buy it, it's not going to have much affect on price.

[Busboy]

Surely you understand that shoes, dresses and Lamborghinis are luxury items while good wine is a necessity. 

←

In the unlikely event you're not kidding, surely you understand that you don't get to define luxury goods as necessities just because you like them a lot.

←

Actually, according to the consumerist propaganda currently pasted to my bus stop (I forget what they're advertising, but the slogan has stuck) "If you want it badly enough, it's a necessity."

I never can understand these proposed boycotts of expensive items. If all the people who can't afford something agree not to buy it, it's not going to have much affect on price.

Of course. That's why I need to rally others to my cause.

[Darrell Gibson]

Surely you understand that shoes, dresses and Lamborghinis are luxury items while good wine is a necessity. 

←

In the unlikely event you're not kidding, surely you understand that you don't get to define luxury goods as necessities just because you like them a lot.

←

Actually, according to the consumerist propaganda currently pasted to my bus stop (I forget what they're advertising, but the slogan has stuck) "If you want it badly enough, it's a necessity."

I never can understand these proposed boycotts of expensive items. If all the people who can't afford something agree not to buy it, it's not going to have much affect on price.

Of course. That's why I need to rally others to my cause.

←

Please say it isn't so! I have to admit - even as a retailer - that the prices are high, but how can you put a value on such unique and wonderous pieces of art (considering First Growths.) Unfortunetly I was not able to taste through the barrel samples of the 2005 vintage, but I did on the 2004s with a smattering of 2003's. If you are looking for a value - seek out the 2003's. This vintage was fantastic and was overshadowed by the 2005's.

[MaxH]

There's only one hope, one that will benefit us all: a two-year boycott of all wines that cost over $40 retail . . .

Come on, Busboy. If the brand-name wines are expensive, seek out good wines that aren't brand names, or fashionable. Don't go after the wines everyone else is chasing. (Chasing, in some cases, simply because other people are chasing them, or because of being told to chase them.) It leads to absurd extremes discussed here before, such as offerings of $60,000 magnums of famous 60-year-old wine that (by the way) was not bottled in magnums.

This is why consumers need to develop their palates. That's what countless sincere wine consumers and writers have advocated for decades. Then you can buy by the experience in the glass, not by the brand name. (I'm reflecting for instance on the last 20 years of excellent lesser-known or lesser-appelation Burgundy purchases for $20 a bottle retail or less, which provided lots of pleasure to lots of people. I doubt you could have gone anywhere and looked up these wines in a list when they were on the market, and if you could, they'd have been more expensive for that reason.)

Good hunting! -- Max

[Busboy]

There's only one hope, one that will benefit us all: a two-year boycott of all wines that cost over $40 retail . . .

Come on, Busboy. If the brand-name wines are expensive, seek out good wines that aren't brand names, or fashionable. Don't go after the wines everyone else is chasing. (Chasing, in some cases, simply because other people are chasing them, or because of being told to chase them.) It leads to absurd extremes discussed here before, such as offerings of $60,000 magnums of famous 60-year-old wine that (by the way) was not bottled in magnums.

This is why consumers need to develop their palates. That's what countless sincere wine consumers and writers have advocated for decades. Then you can buy by the experience in the glass, not by the brand name. (I'm reflecting for instance on the last 20 years of excellent lesser-known or lesser-appelation Burgundy purchases for $20 a bottle retail or less, which provided lots of pleasure to lots of people. I doubt you could have gone anywhere and looked up these wines in a list when they were on the market, and if you could, they'd have been more expensive for that reason.)

Good hunting! -- Max

←

Well, what the hell do you think I've been doing? Drinking mineral water?

But there is a reason that names like Eschezeaux and and Trotenoy become famous -- and in the days of my misspent youth, even a humble waiter or bike courier could occasionally afford a splurge on a taste of Gravelly Pit or Gaja Barolo(well, maybe not the Gaja).

I'd like to be able to do that again. But, if you can look me in the eye and tell me that a $20 lesser appellation Burgundy captures the majesty of a Le Montrachet (or even a lovely little Puligny) I will cease and desist.

Until then, I'm the boycott is on.

[NYC Mike]

This is why consumers need to develop their palates. That's what countless sincere wine consumers and writers have advocated for decades. Then you can buy by the experience in the glass, not by the brand name. (I'm reflecting for instance on the last 20 years of excellent lesser-known or lesser-appelation Burgundy purchases for $20 a bottle retail or less, which provided lots of pleasure to lots of people. I doubt you could have gone anywhere and looked up these wines in a list when they were on the market, and if you could, they'd have been more expensive for that reason.)

This is an excellent point. Enjoying wine while not knowing much about it is a financially dangerous combination. I was one who used to "pay up" as a way of being sure I would be drinking a "good" bottle, $80 and up in most cases.

This year's resolution was to not pay more than $25 a bottle and I having stuck to it, I can say I never imagined I could learn so much and enjoy it more than I already did.

-Mike

[docsconz]

Count me in. I think wine prices have gotten ridiculously high. While I will continue to spend money on wine, I will be very discriminating and buy only wines that I perceive as excellent value. I have already started doing this for some time now.

[DTBarton]

I agree with the notion that it's best to concentrate on value from winemakers with lesser fame and notoriety. Also, there's a silver lining ineverything. As mentioned above, the incredible hype and corresponding price run up of the 2005 Bordeaux vintage will mean that great bargains will be available in the perfectly good vintages of 2003 and 2004 at retail sale. Parker makes the wise recommendation in his latest WA to not buy any '04 futures as they will probably be better bargains when released to retail due to demand for '05. Similar to what happened with the great 2000 vintage which left excelent value on good wines from the late 1990s.

Besides, Busboy, I don't know where your friend shops. At Mills in Annapolis (one of my regular wine buying haunts) the 05 Lafitte is only $6600/case, such a deal!

[JohnL]

Count me in. I think wine prices have gotten ridiculously high. While I will continue to spend money on wine, I will be very discriminating and buy only wines that I perceive as excellent value. I have already started doing this for some time now.

←

"Value" is quite subjective and very relative.

I was once a guest of an honest to goodness billionaire whose sailing ship was stocked with a very good white Burgundy. His "house" wine so to speak. Interestingly, it was a basic village wine (Puligny) from a good producer.

My guess is the wine cost around fifty dollars a bottle. For most people this wine would be something more than an everyday white. For this wealthy man though a different perspective is applied. While he certainly could have afforded a much more extravagent bottle for everyday use--somehow the white selected seemed quite appropriate and reasonable.

The very best wines have always been expensive--they are in demand (often they are produced in limited quantities).

Looking for value is good sense for anyone who is interested in wine (no matter what the person's economic status). I recently found a bottle of 95 La Turque and a bottle of 95 La Mouline for less than $200 each on a retailer's shelf--sensing a good deal (good value) I snapped em up.

The fact is, the wine consumption market has grown rapidly. Once, much of the better Bordeaux was purchased by a small group of Europeans (mostly Brits) they controlled the market and the prices accordingly. But today first growth Bordeaux is in demand all over the world--the emergence of the Pacific Rim as a market for eg.--and the US. More people with more money are vying for the top wines. Thus these wines become scarcer and more expensive.

try finding a bottle of Romanee Copnti or Petrus at any price these days!

It is also a truth that there are few unsung or undiscovered "great" wines. The wine press and the educated market place see to that.

At the moment if one is looking for wines that are truly distinctive and great at relative bargain prices--good value-- then one could look to vintage Port. Also Sauternes and white Bordeaux and the Loire. I have found that if a great wine is out of fashion (for whatever reason) or less fashionable--prices--of course--tend to be lower--there's more "value" for the dollar.

The really good thing today is that the market place has "lifted" many lesser wines. Because the money is there wine makers can get a decent return on their wines--many lesser growth Bordeaux have been able to upgrade their facilities and there is more good the very good Bordeaux available at good prices. There are also many more good vintages. Wine making technique and science has enabled wine makers to better counter mother nature so once poor vintages weather wise now see many good wines produced.

Also basic entry level wines are more abundant and are much better quality overall.

Sure, if one wants to drink first growth Bordeaux or Burgundy the entry fee is extremely high. But I would argue that the gap in quality between them and lesser growths has been reduced considerably.

In the end though--it is all relative!

[Sneakeater]

Count me in. I think wine prices have gotten ridiculously high. While I will continue to spend money on wine, I will be very discriminating and buy only wines that I perceive as excellent value. I have already started doing this for some time now.

←

That's not a boycott. That's just being a discriminating consumer within your own parameters.

[djsexyb]

That's not a boycott. That's just being a discriminating consumer within your own parameters

Couldnt have said it better myself. with all do respect to everyone that wants to formally "ban" their purchase of high end wines, and while i do believe that many, many wine prices are outrageous, those that can afford to buy these wines are going to buy them anyway, reguardless of price. look at it this way, chateau mouton rothschild and other first growths aren't going to be overwhelmed with unsold cases of their wines (even in "bad" years). the demand is super-high despite cost and will be untill a "better" trend comes along.

and if i might play devils advocate here, being a business owner, wouldnt you want to make the most money off your product(s) that you can? as long as the chateaus are still bottling quality wine and people are scarfing them up, why not raise price? all their really doing is cutting out appreciation on the collector's wine market and taking the profit for themselvs. are we really mad that the prices are so high or are we made that we cant cellar it for 20years and make 250% return on our money.

Edited July 11, 2006 by djsexyb (log)

[docsconz]

I don't blame the winemakers or anyone else in the trade trying to make what they can. It is a free market.

I find that I am now priced out of a lot of these wines and even though I can afford many relatively expensive wines, I no longer feel that the value is there for so many of them so I will not buy them. of course that is my choice. Perhaps it technically is not a boycot, though I would buy them again if the prices fell back to what I feel are reasonable. If others can and do buy the wines at the prices offered, power to them. I won't sweat it.

[PurpleLips]

But let's face it - Bordeaux prices are what they are only because of the people who buy them with absolutely no intention of ever drinking them. "Works of art" or objects of financial speculation, these first growth Bordeaux's aren't for wine lovers. Thank goodness so many other parts of the world are making wines to bring tears to the eye and turn great meals into great memories...

[JohnL]

But let's face it - Bordeaux prices are what they are only because of the people who buy them with absolutely no intention of ever drinking them.  "Works of art" or objects of financial speculation, these first growth Bordeaux's aren't for wine lovers.  Thank goodness so many other parts of the world are making wines to bring tears to the eye and turn great meals into great memories...

←

You are expressing what I believe to be a great myth.

Like most conventional wisdom there is a nugget of truth.

There are a number of "speculators" out there.

There is a healthy auction market.

But a sour grapes attitude has driven the belief that high prices are a result of

"Wall street" speculators (barbarians at the grapes) effete well heeled snobs who

gloat over immense cellars of great wines they never open etc etc etc.

Those people do exist and probably have a very small impact.

The most insidious results of this sour grapes thinking are rumors of wealthy Japanese businessmen who buy up Lafitte and mix it with coca cola or fill swimming pools with Margaux.

Again there may be a nugget of truth here and there but the racism aside--one should be able to enjoy anything one can purchase anyway one wants and there is simply no evidence that these behaviors exist to any great degree.

Anecdotal evidence is dicey but I personally know many wealthy collectors (of many races) all who have large cellars buy lots of futures and all of whom are passionate lovers of fine wines and who not only enjoy their cellars bounty but share those bottles often. They do drink the stuff!

The fact is there has been an explosion in appreciation of wines (fine and not so fine) and coupled with a very healthy global economy, has led to great demand and high prices and scarcity.

One simply needs to look at the fast growing interest in food and restaurants that goes hand in hand with an increase in interest in wine.

It is hard to find 82 Bordeaux on restaurant wine lists--most has been ordered and drunk.

It is tempting to develop theories that attribute high prices to devious behavior by unworthy snobs and interlopers. How many times does one hear about all the really good California cabs being guzzled by ignorant drunk and rowdy stock brokers or the talk that has those California Cabs not being really all that good anyway.

Snobbism is rampant in the world of wine. Hopefully one day it will subside and we can just enjoy drinking whatever it is we can afford but then again, we are only human.

[PurpleLips]

Still, the wine cellars of those with the income to burn all have a fine collection of first growths, the odd bottle of which will be drunk, the vast majority of which their kids will fight over as inheritance. They are like literary classics on a well-stocked bookshelf. They're there so everyone can see the owner knows well enough, but the spines are likely uncreased.

[Daniel Rogov]

Bordeaux prices are what they are only because of the people who buy them with absolutely no intention of ever drinking them.  "Works of art" or objects of financial speculation, these first growth Bordeaux's aren't for wine lovers

←

They are like literary classics on a well-stocked bookshelf.  They're there so everyone can see the owner knows well enough, but the spines are likely uncreased.

←

At the risk of sounding argumentative (well…..perhaps I am being a bit argumentative), I cannot help but think that you are harboring a rather negative image of too many people. Believe it….many people buy books for the actual purpose of reading and re-reading them, perhaps over and over again as the years go on… of making those books an integral and perhaps even beloved part of themselves and their lives. The same is often also true for wine, and a great many of those who buy fine wines actually do so with the intent of opening them and sharing them with friends. Perhaps even more shocking, not all even give a hoot about impressing friends or strangers but actually do purchase such wines because of the deep love they have for wine.

Indeed it is only the well-off who can buy the Lafites and the Cheval Blancs by the case but then again for most people of the world any wine costing more than five or six Euros is considered not only a luxury but an extravagance. Indeed as well, most of those who do buy fine Bordeaux or other very expensive first growths,do not buy by the case but purchase one, two or perhaps three bottles of several wines, with the plan (the dream if you like) of opening them in five, ten or twenty years; perhaps to celebrate the 21st birthday of a child, a special anniversary or even a special moment that just seems to make that wine beckon.

And I'll let you in on a great secret. Even those who can afford to buy such wines do not drink them every morning, afternoon and evening. Sometimes those people with the great wines in their cellars actually enjoy a sparklingly young Vinho Verde, a glass of Morgon, and even at times,perhaps when seated at a café in Paris, and to accompany a cheese sandwich on a baguette, nothing more than a ballon de rouge.

[Sneakeater]

Thank you for saying that, Daniel.

[PurpleLips]

Well, if you'd argue every leather-bound copy of "War and Peace", "Bleak House" or "The Magic Mountain" gets read, I won't burst your bubble... Nevertheless, prices for Bordeaux are set by collectors. Prices are set by the case and they are set a year before those cases ship. I don't imagine the chateaux give a passing thought to the unwashed masses who might splurge on a single bottle of Le Pin to celebrate an event 10 years in the future. I'm not up for a boycott, but for all the Bordeaux I can afford to "invest" in, I might as well be.

[Busboy]

I’ve read all of your comments with great interest and have taken many of them to heart. I am now convinced that a boycott will not work, as those pushing wine prices into the stratosphere have no interest in my ability to afford it, which is, in fact, my only real concern.

Therefore, I have decided that more radical action is needed to suppress demand and thus being prices down to my level, and propose the following:

Since the United States is always in some sort of trade or diplomatic tussle with the French and, to a lesser extent, the EU, I propose that next time we turn up the pressure by slapping a 100% tariff on the value of all wine shipped over $20/bottle wholesale. This should put a crick in the demand curve and, as you know, the price that comes from a 10% oversupply is dramatically different from the price that results from a 10% undersupply. Sure, trade wars can’t last forever, but a couple of years of low demand should have a beneficial effect on the price of premium German, Italian and French wines.

Second, I believe we should impose a significant “liquid assets” tax on all those bottles gathering dust in the cellar, one that increases gradually with the age of the bottle. This will see that these wines are indeed being drunk and shared, or provide incentive for dumping them on the market, punishing speculators and the idle rich, who will find themselves either nursing hangovers or selling at a loss. I think this proposal will be acceptable to the left-of-center political parties the world ‘round, who are continuously looking for funds to support their semi-socialist schemes (like subsidizing grape-growing) and who will find wine collectors even easier to caricature than foie gras eaters.

Third, the revenue from the liquid assets tax in the U.S. should be used to provide a special tax break for planting Cabernet and Merlot in California (sorry, Oregon, your Pinots are still comparatively reasonable). One every Vice President for Software Development in Silicon Valley with a few bucks in stock options and a few bottles of Screaming Eagle in the cellar starts ripping up hillsides and throwing money at Helen Turley, the market will be flooded high-alcohol fruit bombs boasting 94s from Parker and 96s from the Wine Spectator.

Just as growing Chinese demand for energy has played a significant role in recent oil price hikes, their demand for fine wine is helping to push its cost to the Bordelaise equivalent of $78/barrel. Therefore, just as we pay coca growers and opium farmers to switch production to grains and coffee, I will be asking America’s entertainment and high-tech industries to fund a program to shift Chinese counterfeiters from DVDs and software, to fine wines that can be dumped onto the Asian markets. Don’t think of it as cheap swill under a fake label – think of it as purple biofuel.

These are indeed radical proposals, but desperate times demand desperate acts. I have already begun lobbying members of the minority party to include these proposals in their 2008 platform, I invite one of my friends from the other side of the aisle join me in working with the majority party on this issue, in a true show of bipartisan populism.

The time to act is now. Before my next big dinner party.

[Sneakeater]

[Deleted cuz I missed the line about the "liquid assets tax"]

Edited July 14, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)