Boycott Bordeaux! (and others)

[Daniel Rogov]

In the name of the "fun" that has been used happily here, let me toss out a set of hypothetical questions....

(a) We go to the Uffizzi Museum in Florence, there to see a long-lost Leonardo that has been purchased for 13,000,000 Euros. How does one determine the "value" of this?

(b) Somebody purchases a double magnum of Chateau d'Yquem, 1900 (still magnificent, believe me) for 23,000 pound sterling. Has the person purchased merely a bottle of wine or has he/she purchsed a significant part of the 20th century. And the difference between the person who plans to open that bottle and share it with friends and the one who intends only to "show it off"

© The soldier in the midst of combat who is out of cigarettes and willingly pays US$100 for a single package. Too expensive?

In a sense, have we not in each of these cases as in the case of Bordeaux 2005 gone beyond the question of price and are in fact talking about "value". Not value for money (QPR) but value to the individual. And if those values are truly aesthetic how can we fault the person who spends that money?

Edited July 18, 2006 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[JohnL]

I have no problems with "luxury items" being priced as the market will bear.  I have no desire for fancy sports cars or dripping diamonds.  I have a moderate interest in high-end fashion but a bit too much figure, anyway.  But I'm fully dedicated to my love of food and wine.  And sometimes that's poutine, and sometimes it's truffles.  Tell me truffles are expensive because of how they are harvested, packaged and shipped and I'll pay pay pay.  But with these famous (and frankly, this is what sets the bordeaux apart) wines the prices aren't relative to the product, only to the buyer. 

Who didn't laugh darkly when the Bordeaux prices weren't declared for a month while the chateaux waited for Mr. Parker to show up?  I wouldn't volunteer to judge the "worthiness" of bordeaux buyers.  But it burns me that I can't enjoy some wines as often as I'd like because of a commodity market that's grown onto something I'm so passionate about. 

What am I saying?  IT'S NOT FAIR.  Laugh away

←

Ya know--I would like to shave something other than some inexpensive pecorino over my pasta once in a while but all you effete, truffle eating snobs have made the cost of that go way outta proportion to what is really a golfball sized fungus!!!!

Yeah--it all Parker's fault--gee you don't need binoculars to see this coming from you people.

It's Parker. It's the rich. It's people who just display the wine. It's people who drink it but don't appreciate it like you do. It's Japanese business men who fill their pools with it. It is Russian mafia who spike their borscht with it and pour over their kobe beef.

Really, if the rich behaved the way you guys say they do, it's hard to see how they became rich in the first place. (given they are the shallow fashion driven, free spending fools you say they are).

oh--they inherited it!!!!! yeah that's it!

someone gave em all that money to waste!!!

and all those rich folks only listen to Parker or they hire wine consultants who are too young to really appreciate wine anyway.

If only Parker would say--don't buy these wines unless you are worthy-- or better-- if only he would go away and then the rich would lose interest and be lost--they wouldn't know which wines to buy, who would tell them what to like???? and Margaux would be fifty dollars a bottle!!!

And only those really "in the know" those of us who truly appreciate these works of art those of us who have the right level of true passion and devotion--will drink them.

The world will make sense!!!

All will be right and good!!!

Yeow!

now do you folks really deserve those hundred dollar shoes you are wearing?

(sorry--I guess it's probably simple sandles to go with the sack cloth and ashes)

let's stop complaining and start drinking!

There's a hell of a lot of really nice wines for prices we can all afford!

[PurpleLips]

I guess I should just be grateful there's a wine glut and I can afford any wine at all. Come the next phylloxera-scale wine disaster I'll just kick myself for bypassing law school and opting out of organized crime...

[Busboy]

In the name of the "fun" that has been used happily here, let me toss out a set of hypothetical questions....

(a) We go to the Uffizzi Museum in Florence, there to see a long-lost Leonardo that has been purchased for 13,000,000 Euros.  How does one determine the "value" of this?

(b) Somebody purchases a double magnum of Chateau d'Yquem, 1900 (still magnificent, believe me) for 23,000 pound sterling.  Has the person purchased merely a bottle of wine or has he/she purchsed a significant part of the 20th century.  And the difference between the person who plans to open that bottle and share it with friends and the one who intends only to "show it off"

© The soldier in the midst of combat who is out of cigarettes and willingly pays US$100 for a single package.  Too expensive?

In a sense, have we not in each of these cases as in the case of Bordeaux 2005 gone beyond the question of price and are in fact talking about "value".  Not value for money (QPR) but value to the individual.  And if those values are truly aesthetic how can we fault the person who spends that money?

←

The difference -- and I'm not pretending I'm not being utterly self-centered here -- is that I can fly to Florence and, in two days "consume" billions of euros worth of art. In fact, living on the east coast of the US I can get an inexpensive fill of many, many of the world's greatest artists. And, indeed, if I hit a special exhibition and read closely, I'll usually find that some of the pieces on exhibit have been lent by collectors and most are owned by museums who received them as bequests or gifts from collectors.

Haven't yet seen a collector send a case of 1900 d'Ychem on tour yet, but will be in line when that day comes.

So, those us without means to buy "the best" wines, can at least see "the best" art (hell, I can buy Joyce for 5 bucks at a used book store).

And, of course, agitate for the grand cru boycott.

Salut!

[Daniel Rogov]

Charles, Hi.....

No..... the real difference is that the bottle of wine, like the creation of a chef, must be destroyed in order to be appreciated while the creation of the sculptor or painter (unless he is Tingueley whose works were self-destructing) can exist for hundreds if not thousands of years and continue to be appreciated. That is to say, to truly admire a bottle of wine we must drink it, to appreciate a fine culinary creation, we must eat it.

And may I ask, how much would it cost you to fly to Florence and to stay at an even decent hotel for those two days? Heck, while you're there you might even choose to dine at Il Cipreo and with your meal to have one of the fine Bordeaux or Burgundy wines on their excellent wine list.

I'm sure you do, by the way, realize that as you are to some extent "playing", so indeed am I.

[Sneakeater]

But of course, the point is, just as there's plenty of great art available for public viewing in museums, there's plenty of great wine available at substratospheric prices for us piddling middle-class peons to buy and enjoy. There's also plenty of great art, from ancient to old masters to modern, that's parked in private collections that none of us can see. Just as there's also some great wine that is priced higher than we piddling middle-class peons can pay.

Life is just like that, ya know?

[Busboy]

Charles, Hi.....

And may I ask, how much would it cost you to fly to Florence and to stay at an even decent hotel for those two days?  Heck, while you're there you might even choose to dine at Il Cipreo and with your meal to have one of the fine Bordeaux or Burgundy wines on their excellent wine list.

←

It appears that I can fly to Florence and stay at a decent hotel -- my standards are low, as long as I'm in some place like Florence -- for substantially less than I can buy a case of '05 Cos d'Estournal. (And one bit of practical advice I intend to take is to look at the off-vintages now being eclipsed by this, what is it, third "vintage of the century" so far?).

(Would I be shot for ordering Bordeaux in Florence? It seems so un-kosher somehow.)

Oh well, one good recession and I'll be drinking like a king. In the mean time, I am in the land cheap cafe wine and am getting by without the good stuff.

[Sneakeater]

(Would I be shot for ordering Bordeaux in Florence?  It seems so un-kosher somehow.)

←

I've certainly eaten pork in Florence.

[JohnL]

But of course, the point is, just as there's plenty of great art available for public viewing in museums, there's plenty of great wine available at substratospheric prices for us piddling middle-class peons to buy and enjoy.  There's also plenty of great art, from ancient to old masters to modern, that's parked in private collections that none of us can see.  Just as there's also some great wine that is priced higher than we piddling middle-class peons can pay.

Life is just like that, ya know?

←

Yours is a "healthy" approach that employs some common sense and perspective.

I agree.

Let me go a step further.

The analogy comparing wine to art is misguided.

I will qualify this and say "fine arts."

One has to stretch the language and definitions to apply the fine arts analogy to wine.

Wine is first and foremost a beverage.

It has a clearly defined purpose a, utility.

For many different reasons--some wines are "better" than others.

Those who rail against scoring or rating wines are mostly in self denial--these folks, for the most part, are responsible for elevating wine well beyond its proper context. They ignore the fact that art, fine and otherwise is and has been "rated" and evaluated for centuries.

It seems to me that we as a society are constantly searching for things to "prize."

It started with stamps and coins and now 1950's kitsch like metal lunch pails and "vintage" tupperwear containers are now "collected" and valued/prized.

To compare things with a symphony or a painting or poetry is to lose all sense of perspective and context.

To say that a wine is "poetic" is fine if one realizes the hyperbole at play. Unfortunately, I believe, we often do not and take this exaggeration far too seriously.

The Mouton labels are conceived with a purpose designed to "elevate" their wines from others.

To take the implication too literally is a mistake.

Wine is made to be drunk. It is a result of craftsmanship. It can be artisinal. Winemakers are not artists in the sense that Picasso is an artist any more than someone who makes fine ashtrays from pottery or metal is comparable to Rodin.

I fear we often devalue fine artists in our attempts to value everyday items.

I offer an anecdote as an example of someone who quite possibly understands wine and perspective and context:

(I have forgotten some details/specifics)

Years ago the Four seasons restaurant purchased a bottle of wine (a magnum I believe) for an astronomical sum (say $50,000.00 or maybe even $100K)--a huge investment. It was one of those heralded wines from the distant past--like those Margaux's or Lafittes from the 1700's owned by Thomas Jefferson that pass from collector to collector growing exponentially in value with each.

At the "unveiling" at the restaurant with a large contingency of press the owner of the restaurant somehow dropped the bottle and it broke in many pieces!

The press and the wine world were aghast.

It has long been suspected that the owner (a brilliant promoter) intentionally "dropped" the bottle. Knowing that the "wine" inside was surely undrinkable he received millions of dollars in publicity for the restaurant for his, now relatively, "small" investment.

drink for thought......

[Daniel Rogov]

But there is another point of view about wine......that expressed by the poet Beaumarchais when he write that when he opens a bottle of awe that he stands in awe, for "it is not merely a bottle of wine but five thousand years of human civilization that I open". Extend that a bit if you will to the World War I attitude that "wine is the sunshine of the trenches"; that wine is an old and comfortable friend, one that if you do not abuse it, will never abuse or abandon you.....

All perhaps a question of the passion with which one loves something?

And believe me, I am not defending les grands chateaux in all of this. Depending on the time, the setting, the company and the mood the ballon de rouge to which I referred earlier in this thread can give me no less pleasure than the finest of Margaux. I suppose if I am defending anything at all it is passion.

[JohnL]

But there is another point of view about wine......that expressed by the poet Beaumarchais when he write that when he opens a bottle of awe that he stands in awe, for "it is not merely a bottle of wine but five thousand years of human civilization that I open". Extend that a bit if you will to the World War I attitude that "wine is the sunshine of the trenches"; that wine is an old and comfortable friend, one that if you do not abuse it, will never abuse or abandon you.....

All perhaps a question of the passion with which one loves something?

And believe me, I am not defending les grands chateaux in all of this.  Depending on the time, the setting, the company and the mood the ballon de rouge to which I referred earlier in this thread can give me no less pleasure than the finest of Margaux.  I suppose if I am defending anything at all it is passion.

←

Ah but which is the real work of art here--the "poetic" reflection by Beaumarchais or the wine that inspired it?

Passion can be misplaced and misguided.

Beaumarchais was making a brilliant observation holding a "greater truth."

For someone to miss that truth and value a single specific bottle based upon it is misguided.

Thus my point about context and perspective.

A painter can be inspired by the mundane-- the everyday--a bowl of fruit.

He/she can convey that inspiration sharing it with us and we can certainly appreciate that bowl of fruit in a new and different light, one that can enhance greatly our enjoyment of the fruit.

However--the painting is the art, the bowl of fruit is -------a bowl of fruit!

So the painting will possibly sell for a lot of money and the bowl of fruit will be worth the going rate for apples and oranges and pottery.

Unless of course that bowl is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity declaring it to be " the actual bowl of fruit as seen in the painting by Chagall!"

(in which case the fruit may sell for more than the painting--on QVC of course!).

Edited July 20, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[CtznCane]

The last time I bought top Bordeaux wines was in the Mid 80's. I don't have any illusions of buying any more at the prices they are at now. Certainly the first growths are out of my price range so I guess I have a forced boycott of them. The fact too is that they are not going to come down in price. I sold high end cars for many, many years. I think there is a comparison. With automobiles I remember years ago in the 70's the first time I sold a relatively high end car ($20K plus when most were around 5K) wondering how someone will make the payments. Answer is they don't, the guy paid cash. With cars, the lower the price of the car, the more likely it will be financed. At least as of the late 90's Hyundai was the car most financed. One of the cheapest and I believe the percentage was about 90% plus financed. On the other hand, when people buy a high end Benz, Ferrari, or even a Rolls Royce it is typically a cash deal. The more expensive the car, the more likely they'll pay cash. How does this translate to first growths? Even for those of us with a good amount of disposable income, for us to purchase a $30 dollar bottle of wine puts more of a dent in our cash flow than someone who is spending $10,000 dollars a bottle. Bottom line is, while there are enough people for whom buying a first growth is, cost wise like us buying 2 buck chuck, that we will never again see them at an affordable price.

The upside is that other than the name, it leaves us to hunt out the good values and hidden treasures that are available. I think most of us here on this forum try to do that anyhow and that is part of our enjoyment. I must say though that I feel lucky to have been able to have enjoyed as many as I have at a time when they were within the price of at least some reason. Even so, I I find more pleasure in wine now that I have to hunt for than I did then, so I guess I don't miss those first growth wines too much anyhow.

[Busboy]

A relevant article here, tending to support the more cynical view of why top Cabs and Bordeaux are so ridiculously expensive.

[Snowy is dead]

I like to think of the ridiculous prices of many wines as something of a challenge. every wine I bought for $10 dollars until it was "discovered" and now sells for

$100 has had to be replaced by something else. Now my wine hobby not only consists of drinking nice wine that I can afford, but the experience of finding stuff I never would have tried had I not been forced to. I feel better about paying $100 for a case of provencal wine that I enjoy than $100 for one bottle of anything. Not that I wouldn't buy the first growths if they were $40, but they're not, so I don't. Same reason I don't live on Nantucket, drive a Jag, and have a 50 foot yacht.

C'est la vie I suppose.

Maybe they'll start raffling off futures to the huddled masses like they give away cars at the mall...

[MaxH]

A relevant article here, ...

←

I took a quick look: it seemed to be an interesting article. (Aside: Here again we see, spotlighted now, the widely-understood mention of "cult" California wines; anyone who insists on resisting that usage argues with major mainstream publications, not just enthusiasts of the wines themselves.)

Anyway: I'm a little unclear about why people spend energy on protesting high prices for cliché brand-name wines, rather than on finding good wines that are less expensive. The last has been the aim of many wine enthusiasts and writers for decades. Bordeaux itself makes a vast range of wines, some of them very moderately-priced. Enthusiasts and merchants have recommended them for decades. Including on the Internet: they figured in the first posting on the original Internet public wine forum (February 1982). Prior to that, one respected importer/merchant I was buying from, for instance (Kermit Lynch), advertised "futures" on 1978 Bordeaux (a hugely hyped vintage, generally, at the time) that specifically sold for $4-6 and from less brand-named appellations or makers. I still have the advertisement, with my notes on the ones I bought. They developed finely. Many merchants have done variations of that. I and others continue to buy (for instance) a trustworthy Haut-Médoc that's been a value for decades and long mentioned online. Seek, and ye find such values. They won't impress wine-ignorant yuppie snobs, but is that the point, or to enjoy the experience of the product in the glass? Fish, or cut bait.

[Busboy]

A relevant article here, ...

←

Anyway: I'm a little unclear about why people spend energy on protesting high prices for cliché brand-name wines, rather than on finding good wines that are less expensive.

←

So, you're suggesting that a Chateau Cheval Blanc or a Domaine Romanee-Conti is a cliche brand-name wine, of no interest to the serious wine drinker, rather than an extraordinary example of the winemaker's art?

Suggestions to seek out "undiscovered" wines are a bit, shall we say, superfluous. Almost condescending. It's what one does with every visit to the wine shop. But we'd like to be able to afford a drop of the classics every now and then, as well.

[MaxH]

So, you're suggesting that a Chateau Cheval Blanc or a Domaine Romanee-Conti is a cliche brand-name wine, of no interest to the serious wine drinker, rather than an extraordinary example of the winemaker's art?

Certainly not, busboy. ("Cliché" as in familiar -- it's no comment on quality.) That's the second straw-man you've assembled here from my remarks and then answered. Here's the first:

...I'm reflecting for instance on the last 20 years of excellent lesser-known Burgundy purchases for $20 or less ... lots of pleasure to lots of people

... if you can look me in the eye and tell me that a $20 lesser appellation Burgundy captures the majesty of a Le Montrachet ... I will cease and desist.

We address different things. For many years I've heard people hold forth that (say) all drinkable Burgundies cost over $50 (or whatever sum), which is baloney of course, as you know if you know Burgundies. Unless, that is, you limit yourself to names everyone mentions. The point, in its price range, doesn't concern top Burgundies (Le Montrachet) but shows the problem with buying just well-known wines.

Deeper perspective difference might emerge from examining a sentiment (with a famous precedent) in the first post:

[complaining, among other things, of high prices for Chambertin.]

In 1980 or 81 Robert Finigan, who was then a, or the, leading general US wine-newsletter writer, complained of high Burgundy prices. This brought a reply from Aubert de Villaine (of the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti which of course makes several wines named here). De Villaine observed -- this is from memory, but close -- that Finigan was grousing because current prices made "the glass of Chambertin a luxury; but is that not what it is, a luxury in our time, just as it was in 1750, when a bottle of La Tâche cost as much as a postman's weekly salary?"

In other words, people have noticed luxury wine prices for centuries. (They seem always to regard this as new.) Posts here of that kind, if I read them right, begin by assuming that serious interest is limited to brand-name wines, then try to force replies outside that perspective into it. The thread title even lumps all Bordeaux together as if humble regional wine tracked Petrus. Oversimplifying at the outset. (Finally you can always join others and split the cost of tasting an expensive wine. Thousands do.)

Next question?

[Busboy]

Indeed, we have returned to 1750 -- in fact we are worse off now. Clicking here here and here we find that our oenophilic letter carrier must now work almost two weeks to afford a single bottle of La Tâche -- and this, in an era of collective bargaining that our French facteur surely did not enjoy 250 years ago. This speaks directly to my point and I thank you for illustrating it so vividly: not long ago, even a humble mailman or busboy could venture occasionally into the land of giants without forsaking their summer vacation savings in the process. I recall once stumbling across two bottles of Tâche for the now-unimaginable cost of $80 each. A luxury purchase but, as they say, an affordable one.

But, I'm glad you brought up 18th Century France, when aggrieved postmen tired of the "let-them-drink-Cakebread-I-hear-there-are-some-fine-Malbecs-coming-out-of-Argentina-these-days" attitude from the aristocracy unleashed the cry of "liberté, egalité, Puligney-Montrachet" and wrested the vinyards of Burgundy from their oppressors (though not, ironically in this context, DRC) and gave them to the peasants.

That is the spirit, as Pontormo so accurately divined upthread, that I am attempting to capture, and I am currently working with other activists to launch a series of "Take Back the [Cote de] Nuits" rallies to get our message across.

[MaxH]

18th Century France, when aggrieved postmen tired of the "let-them-drink-Cakebread-I-hear-there-are-some-fine-Malbecs-coming-out-of-Argentina-these-days" attitude from the aristocracy unleashed the cry of "liberté, egalité, Puligney-Montrachet" and wrested the vinyards of Burgundy from their oppressors ... and gave them to the peasants.

I believe the sequence was more like the revolutionary government grabbed the lands and sold them off for cash (along with everything else), then a dictator seized power and used the peasants as cannon fodder in a bid to conquer the world. (Did you know, apropos, that of all books ever in print, some 0.1% of them are biographies of that dictator? I Am Not Making This Up.)

Marie Antoinette seems to be misperceived lately. Her qu'ils mangent des brioches, I hear, was actually an effort to be helpful (by a Habsburg girl, who like siblings may not have been too swift, and who was raised in big houses where if you ran out of bread, you could find brioche).

I recall once stumbling across two bottles of Tâche for the now-unimaginable cost of $80 each.

I know what you mean. Not I, but a fellow student bought the Tâche, 1971, for $30 (on sale from $40) at a good merchant in Boston, late 1970s. (With inflation, say $80 now.) Gave a bottle to his professor on leaving. The professor, whose self-described wine experience was "I like a good Manischewitz," spoke to me in awe after tasting the wine. Moved almost to tears.

[Daniel Rogov]

"a good Manischewitz"

←

Now THAT is a fine example of both an oxymoron and an obscenity.

Written, bien sur, with all due respect to those who make it and those who drink it for sacramental purposes.

[Snowy is dead]

"Suggestions to seek out "undiscovered" wines are a bit, shall we say, superfluous. Almost condescending. It's what one does with every visit to the wine shop. But we'd like to be able to afford a drop of the classics every now and then, as well."

Hmm. The intent wasn't to be condescending, simply to illustrate how I deal with not being able to afford the wines I would like. My apologies if my example somehow offended you.

Things do change. 200 years ago the average "poor" farmer in New England probably had 200 acres or so of land. People also didn't live on the ocean because it wasn't desireable. Average people at the beginning of the 20th century had horses, not cars. Not so today. These things today are now almost unatainable for all but millionaires. A "good sized" house plot is now about 1/5th of an acre. Horses are reserved tothe posh communities. Sot it is with the "classic" wines. Is it not reasonable to assume those with the cash will pay what they will, have what they want, and search out desireable items, and those without the necessary cash will buy what they can afford?

A boycott of something with the desireability of well-known French wine has very little chance of success. The rich from other countries (or your neighbors) would most likely seize upon the opportunity to buy what the Americans (and other boycott supporters) don't, maintaining the price at close to what the market now dictates. Nothing would really change, I fear. I might as well try and boycott the sale of property in Scarsdale, Nantucket, Manhattan, and Long Island for a year to see what affect I have on them.

Money rules, plain and simple. I cannot imagine a time when people will refuse to get rich because some people on the planet cannot afford their products. I don't see anyone organizing a boycott of bottled water in the US because so many people in Africa can't afford clean water to drink...

Edited August 12, 2006 by Snowy is dead (log)

[Busboy]

Things do change.  200 years ago the average "poor" farmer in New England probably had 200 acres or so of land.  People also didn't live on the ocean because it wasn't desireable.  Average people at the beginning of the 20th century had horses, not cars.  Not so today.  These things today are now almost unatainable for all but millionaires. 

←

On the other hand, air conditioning, cars that go 100 miles an hour and organ transplants are now available even to the hoi polloi. 200 years ago only the richest of the rich had access to liver transplants and, in many countries, hotel rooms with running water, a/c and toilets that had been "sanitized for your protection" were reserved for royalty, while the masses made do with primitive roadhouse conditions, bandits and avaricious landlords with (on occasion) seductive daughters.

A boycott of something with the desireability of well-known French wine has very little chance of success. 

←

This is why, in an earlier post, I called forgovernment intervention. Though politically left-of-center, I don't generally favor government interference in the marketplace. In cases where certain necessities are priced beyond the means of needy persons, however -- I'm thinking of prescription medications, fuel oil in the winter, grands crus and so on -- I do believe that the government does have a legitimate role to play. The difference being that, while such activities as underwriting heating oil for New England's poor or heart medication for the elderly are, let's face it, a drain on the government's coffers, my proposals, such as the liquid assets tax, actually enhance revenues.

In fact, I've actually come up with a new proposal, the "horse shoe nail tax" which will allow afficianadoes to buy good wine in small quantities while discouraging speculation, flipping and leaving three cases in your cellar just to show off. Under this proposal, the first bottle of fine wine (anything over 85 by RP or 88 WS to begin, the National Bureau of Standards will ultimately takeon this role, however) would be taxed a nominal amount, let's say a dollar. The second bottle would be taxed at twice that rate, $2, the third at $4 the fourth at $8 and so on. The cost is minimal for small consumers like you and I, but anyone buying a case for their trophy cellar would pay $2,048 for their twelfth bottle and, if they had the temerity to try to lay down two cases of Cheval Blanc, the tax on the last bottle would be $8,388,608. I think this would discourage hoarding and enhance revenues and, as with my earlier proposals, be extremely attractive to the eurosocialist set. I am reliably informed that Segolene Royale is considering a similar proposal, and believe that broad adoption of this would have a beneficial effect on wine prices across the board.

[Snowy is dead]

" -- I'm thinking of prescription medications, fuel oil in the winter, grands crus and so on -- ."

, the first bottle of fine wine (anything over 85 by RP or 88 WS to begin, the National Bureau of Standards will ultimately takeon this role, however) would be taxed a nominal amount, let's say a dollar. The second bottle would be taxed at twice that rate, $2, the third at $4 the fourth at $8 and so on. The cost is minimal for small consumers like you and I, but anyone buying a case for their trophy cellar would pay $2,048 for their twelfth bottle and, if they had the temerity to try to lay down two cases of Cheval Blanc, the tax on the last bottle would be $8,388,608.

I think it might be hard for some to put medecine necessary for healthy life and heating oil and the people involved in the same category of "needy." I might feel I "need" a new car or a bigger house, but do I really? Needing a bottle of $200 wine is not the same as needing to not freeze to death.

The RP guidelines could be tricky. Won't that tax also affect the unknown cheap bottles that score well? What safeguards would be in place to prevent the purchasing of these wines at the lower tax rate and then reselling them later at a higher price? The same thing happens with concert and world series tickets. The prices are very clearly printed, but we know what happens with scalpers. Would the taxes be upon initial purchases from the chateau, or every time a bottle is sold? Who would check? Would the bottles be tracked? What is to prevent someone from buying the grand cru with the dollar tax and then selling it for $400 privately? I can imagine that the wine would sell just as quickly, if not faster, and the end result would be a thriving black market where the prices have less regulation, not more, and chateaus selling off the extremely expensive property because they're profits have dissappeared.

Maybe its a little grim of an outlook, but I'm just curious to know the details.

Thanks

Sean

[JohnL]

This whole thread is IMOP based on a half truth that is intended to whip everybody into a frenzy.

Here's how it works.

Someone sees prices for some wines that are among a handful of very top wines and gets all bent out of shape. What ensues is an attempt to "blame" someone or some entity for this "outrageous" situation.

So we get rants that are political (often with political resolutions), class based--those dastardly "yuppies."

Elitist--"it's the speculators who don't really appreciate wine." or it's.....

The truth is, there is a group of wines that meet the simple and basic criteria for high prices--finite and/or or small supply combined with high demand.

The age old question of "what is anything worth?" answer--whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

So folks like to attack the person or persons they hold responsible for this state of affairs.

This is the real raison de etre for the whole argument.

Some culprits:

"The critics" --yes critics are influential in "pointing" up wines, and helping to increase demand. But please explain how hundreds of wines that receive high accolades (and yes scores) do not see any severe price rise?

The speculators, sorry there is no real evidence that a large number of people are driving up the price of wine at the retail level. If wine was a good overall investment then mutual funds would be including wine in their portfolios. The key is "retail"--someone looks at the internet and sees a price for a bottle of Chateau whatever and freaks out--this is the secondary market which is always vulnerable to the vagaries and whims of fashion. It is not a real and valid barometer. (in fact--these people freaking our over , say Bordeaux prices on the internet always fail to see or mention the very reasonable and often real "bargains" in older Bordeaux available out there.

The "yuppie scum" --this is my favorite!

This one attempts to assign blame for high prices to a class of people. The argument is no different from one that would blame "poor" people who are in fact, large consumers of high end liquors and brandies like Remy Martin etc.

"They don't (can't possibly) appreciate this stuff--they just drink it to be cool."

I'm sorry, I simply do not assume that a group of "Wall street types" (or whatever 'type") does or does not appreciate anything. The fact is the market for fine wine has been growing and it includes all types! (maybe this is part of the reason for the increased demand).

If all this isn't enough--folks turn to the actual wines in question. So with the appropriate sneer they blame those "cult wines" (I use the current "industry" accepted definition)--or those "garagistes" wines that are not worthy of demand. (only fools and status seeking yuppies would demand these wines).

This conveniently avoids discussing these wines and their true merit or lack of merit--they are lumped together for "arguments sake."

(perhaps rarity is crucial here--almost all these wines are made in tiny quantities. as for quality--well there should be room for debate). To simply dismiss these wines en masse is simply wrong.

Now for the real truth.

Bordeaux?

Tons of it are available (I am really talking classed growths) at quite reasonable prices. From many vintages (2005 futures included). I am looking at just one catalog--Zachy's (a retailer not known for their low ball pricing). They are offering classed growth Bordeaux for 2005 at prices from thirty bucks or so on up. And lot's of these are ninety point or higher wines (if that turns you on).

Burgundy?

How about magnum of Beaune Clos Des Ursules 2002 (very fine vintage)--a magnum! For Ninety Five dollars! (oh it is highly rated by the critics too).

Just peruse the internet--there are more bargains on fine wines then there are outrageous prices.

The point is--it all comes down to supply and demand. Do you think that if fifty thousand cases of Cheval Blanc 1947 (or any high demand wine) suddenly and magically became available on the internet (or anywhere) the current high price might just see at least a little drop?

If D'Yquem made a hundred thousand cases instead of a hundred thousand bottles.....

It is also true that because of the potential to make a good profit due to the markets expanding worldwide more people are putting more effort into making wines at all price points. The wine making is better today than ever before--all wines all wine styles.

You are more likely to find a wine to your liking and budget today than ever before.

And really!

There will always be things that are expensive or out of reach. It is not just wine.

How many of these complainers drank Romanee Conti or Margaux ten or twenty years ago on even a semi regular basis?

What are the odds that these folks would have "discovered" one of the 1200 bottles or so of Screaming Eagle on the shelf of their local wine shop?

So, I say, a lot of this argument about prices is patently false. It looks at a very small (relative) picture and relies on a lot of faulty assumptions. It is often driven by an elitism (wine snobbery) and ignores a simple truth--prices are a result of supply and demand. It seeks to "blame" rather than explain.

OK, you "discover" a great wine for twenty bucks a bottle (by the way, let's be serious about these 'discoveries" the wine was already discovered--an importer and/or a distributor "and a retailer have all "discovered" that wine).

So you buy a case or two and tell some friends, maybe you post a tasting note here or elsewhere. you serve it at dinner parties proudly showing off your "discovery" and your good taste.

You return to the wine shop and the wine is now thirty five bucks a bottle.--how could this be!??

Was it reviewed by those cretins at the Wine Spectator, are dastardly yuppies in on your little secret? is your "discovery" becoming God forbid--fashionable!?

Well-if you want to really get to the bottom of things--look in the mirror! If a thousand people "discover" a wine that is not produced in great quantity then guess what will happen?

So do you take your "discoveries" and drink them in the darkness of your basement hoping against all hope that no one else finds out about them? Well multiply this behavior a bit and maybe the retailer no longer carries the wine, maybe because only you and few other "cognoscenti" really appreciated the wine--it disappears from the market altogether!

anyway...hey! look at this!

Zachy's is selling Malescot St Exupery a classed growth 2005 vintage for fifty bucks a bottle--and a ninety pointer too!!!!!

or want something more "statusy"?--they got Pichon baron 2005 for sixty!!

hey and Pichon Comtesse for only one sixty five but hey talk about status and it got ninety six points!! Wow!!!

and look--here's a whole page of Bordeaux for under twenty bucks!!!

maybe things ain't so bad.

let's just drink up and enjoy life--too short to worry about what I can't afford.

now if those damn yuppies would stop driving up the prices of designer dress shirts!!!!

In the words of FL Jim (who seems to be enjoying life)

Cheers!!!!

Edited August 15, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

To John L.'s post above only one word: Bravo!!!! And if I had to add three more words those would be "Continuez, Monsieur.....Continuez!"*

*For those not familiar with French colloquialisms, there is no higher compliment one person can pay another.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Daniel Rogov (log)